In "The Leadership Secrets of Billy Graham," Harold Myra and Marshall Shelley describe an important meeting the Rev. Graham and his leadership team held in 1948. Too many shady evangelists had given Christian leaders a bad name: poor handling of money, sexual scandals, badmouthing of others doing similar work, and general dishonesty were all undermining the church's work.
So, Graham's team developed principles to "lock them in" to ethical behavior. As an example, Graham committed then to never being alone with a woman who was not his wife: Not only would he avoid that temptation for the rest of his life, but perhaps more importantly he would eliminate the appearance of any impropriety.
Graham, recalled an associate, always insisted on "total integrity." To achieve that level, he committed to lifelong disciplines that would leave his character unquestioned and unquestionable.
Congress could take a page out of Graham's book.
In a recent Milwaukee Biz Blog, Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) played politics as usual by attacking plans by the "Democratic majority" to "spend, spend, spend."
This, after he voted for 28,000 earmarks over six years and cast one of the deciding votes for Medicare Part D - one of the largest and costliest entitlement programs in American history. In short, he overlooked the log in his own eye to find a speck in his opponent's.
He also called on Democrats to act on tax cuts passed a few years ago when Republicans were in charge which are set to expire, or "sunset," soon. What he's not telling you is that he voted to "sunset" the legislation in the first place. Why? So Congress - while Mr. Sensenbrenner was a leader in the Republican majority - could continue to falsify the long-term budget projections, assuring us that in spite of all those earmarks and entitlement expansions (combined with tax cuts), tomorrow's books will magically balance (they won't).
An added benefit was that Republicans could set themselves up to do exactly what Mr. Sensenbrenner is doing today - bash Democrats for wanting to "raise taxes" when the sunset approaches.
"Total integrity" means being honest about the numbers. It means dealing fairly and honestly with your colleagues.
It also means striving to avoid the appearance of impropriety.
Earlier this month, the Center for Responsive Politics issued the results of a study of congressmen invested in defense contractors. Over one fourth of all members of Congress own stocks in the same companies that received hundreds of billions of dollars in defense contracts - and many congressmen benefited financially.
At the top of the list was our own Congressman Sensenbrenner, who earned at least $3.2 million between 2004 and 2006 on defense-industry investments alone.
Similarly, Mr. Sensenbrenner voted in favor of Medicare's Prescription Drug Program in 2003 - a $9 trillion entitlement expansion - while having massive holdings in pharmaceutical industry stocks.
In any other industry, this would be considered insider trading. To avoid the appearance of impropriety and the temptation to vote for legislation that personally benefits them, many congressmen and senators voluntarily put their investments into "blind trusts." But Mr. Sensenbrenner did not support legislation mandating that members of Congress put their funds into blind trusts.
A judge would not rule on a case involving a pharmaceutical company he owned stock in. So why would a congressman vote for legislation that positively affected the value of stocks he owned in pharmaceutical companies - or defense contractors?
Even if it's not corrupt, it sure looks bad.
A similar problem exists with the impact of special interest money. Many members of Congress, including Mr. Sensenbrenner, take millions of dollars from special interests, then vote for legislation that positively affects the very interests that fund their campaigns (the majority of his campaign contributions come from special interests). Or they accept gifts, like the hundreds of thousands of dollars in free travel given Congressman Sensenbrenner, from organizations looking to benefit from Congressional legislation.
It may not be illegal, but it sure looks bad.
Billy Graham understood that leaders need to be held to a higher standard because their actions impact a wide audience. A pastor's example inspires the congregation, while his moral failings undermine the faith and trust of many.
Similarly, our political leaders can aim to elevate and motivate the people they represent by example, or they can take the low road, playing to the public's expectations that all politicians are dirty and that Congress is an arena for combat - instead of cooperation in the public interest.
Public confidence in our leaders is at an all-time low - under 20 percent in the most recent approval ratings of Congress. That's because too few of our leaders care to do what great leaders do best - inspire, lead by example, work together, and understand that appearances matter.
It's time we expected more of our leaders.
Jim Burkee is an associate professor of history at Concordia University Wisconsin and is a Republican candidate for Congress in Wisconsin's 5th Congressional District against F. James Sensenbrenner.




6 Comments
It is true that Sensenbrenner did not sign on to Rep. Bernie Sanders' bill to have congressmen put their holdings in a blind trust, and further, he absolutely refused to support it when I asked him directly during a town hall meeting. He told me congressmen should not be limited in their personal investments.
What say? They should instead be able to vote on legislation that affects industries they currently own stock in AND industries they want to buy into? And, seeing legislation coming that will negatively affect their portfolio, they can sell before the private investors get word?
That is, indeed, worse than insider trading. In some cases I'd call it manipulating the market. It's no wonder his net worth has grown so tremendously. I think it's over $25 million now, given his stake in the defense and pharmaceutical industries.
But Sensenbrenner's support of insider trading is consistent with his opposition to cleaning up congressional ethics. There's no misunderstanding him. He unequivocally opposes campaign finance reform or anything else that gets in his way of being re-elected.
Glad to have Jim Burkee running as a Republican against Sensenbrenner in the primaries. We need change from the current arrogance of congress.
Just curious; how is Sensenbrenner one of the deciding votes? The vote was 220-215. Aren't anyone of the 220 votes a deciding vote? Assuming that the roll was actually called (alphabetically), there would have been almost 40 "yea" votes cast after Sensbrenner's (per the makeup of the 108th Congress).
However, that's not how it works in Congress. They actually vote out of order by just pushing a button. And in the case of the vote on the Medicare Modernization Act, that vote was held open for hours and hours. I don't know, and can't find, what time Sensenbrenner voted for that bill prior to it's passage at almost 6:00 AM on 11/22/03.
I don't mean to sound nit-picky here, but Mr. Burkee is the one distorting reality. Considering the recent Supreme Court race where Gableman was criticised for characterizing Butler's votes on the Court as "deciding" votes, we should be applying the same standard across all campaigns.
Whether the 220-215 vote falls into that category or not, Sensenbrenner has a habit of being a fair-weather fiscal hawk. He often votes against spending bills when his vote isn't needed by the R's, and then he brags about it. But when his vote is needed he is right with his spending friends. He railed against the CAFTA bill as a jobs killer in his town hall meetings, but then cast his vote in favor. It passed by two votes. Had he not voted in favor it would have been a tie vote.
That's the way he plays the game, and it has a lot of people convinced that he is a maverick. But he's just a smart politician. Voting for 28,000 earmarks is just an example of his style.
How soon can I vote for Mr. Burkee?
Life long politicians, regardless of their political stripe, will continue to line their pockets via their voting record. Would Sensenbrenner, or any other congressman, have voted for Medicare Part D, or the long list of earmarks that are passed every budget if they were forced to come home to help pay for these expenses? Not likely.
We have a structural flaw in our constitution.... it allows politicians to 'reign' without limit or term. Congressman Sensenbrenner and his long standing colleagues loose rational perspective when they have been submerged in Washington politics for an extended period of time. We, as Americans, must look at the root of the problem (regarding Congressman Sensenbrenner and all of his colleagues), and impose a fair limit on the time they are allowed to 'Serve' our country in the Congress. If you can't get the job done in 10, 12, or even 16 years, it is time to go.
I hope Mr. Burkee is in favor of term limits. He has my vote, if for only that we can remove another 'Lifer'.
And incidentally, P. Ublius, whether Sensenbrenner was one of the deciding votes or not, on the Medicare Modernization Act, he voted FOR this nation's biggest giveaway to the drug industry ever -- $780 billion over the next decade -- all while owning over a million dollars of pharmaceutical stock. How's that for fiscal responsibility (or better, padding one's own pockets)?
Worse, this promises to put the Medicare system at great risk, when it otherwise is the most efficient method of delivering health care. Perfect? No, but it's a lot better than the privatized system that costs over 25% more to operate. See
http://moneyedpoliticians.wordpress.com/2007/10/13/paying-for-health-care-is-not-rocket-science/