The Most Alarming Part About Roy Blunt's Ethical Lapses

When CREW recently released their report of the thirteen most corrupt members of Congress, Missourians were embarassed, but not surprised to learn that Majority Whip Roy Blunt had been included in the list. 

It's abolutely fair for Blunt to face greater scrutiny.  After all, as the possibility increases that Majority Leader Tom DeLay may end up having to leave his job early due to legal difficulties, there will be more and more interest in the the man who would likely be his replacement. 

Sadly, nothing about Roy Blunt's record offers hope that the ethical climate in Washington would improve with the change, especially since Blunt has given no satisfactory explanation for his own misdeeds.

In the Joplin Globe story about the CREW report, through a spokesperson, Blunt made little effort to explain his ethical lapses but instead launched into a political attack on CREW.  

In the Globe story, Blunt's office did attempt to address two of the allegations raised by CREW's report, but did so poorly.

When asked about Blunt's insertion of the special interest provision benefitting Phillip Morris into the homeland security measure, his spokeswoman tried to explain it away by characterizing it  as related to terrorism.  But Blunt's own colleagues didn't even buy that explanation.

In June 2003, here's what the Kansas City Star had to say about it:

The Washington Post reported this week that Blunt, R-Mo., tried to help Philip Morris by quietly inserting into the legislation that created the Department of Homeland Security last fall a provision that would have cracked down on illegal and Internet-based cigarette sales. Blunt said the sales are funding sources for terrorists.

Blunt took the action outside any normal committee review of proposed legislation, the Post reported, and only hours after becoming the House Majority Whip. When other GOP House leaders discovered his handiwork, they deleted it.

In other words, Blunt's actions didn't even meet DeLay's lax ethical standards.

As for Blunt's efforts on behalf of his son's client UPS, Blunt's office simply said that Andy is a state lobbyist, as if that fully and finally resolved the matter.  Instead, it reveals the motivation behind Blunt's eager-to-please attitude toward a company that in addition to employing his son, has contributed $153,000 to his political committees, according to research by the Washington Post.

Had CREW included in their report Mr. Blunt's championing of a special provision on behalf of Westar, a Kansas energy company, he would have undoubtedly offered no better explanation for that action.

And Blunt would surely have failed just as badly to explain his extraordinary use of corporate planes for his political travels, including the use of a plane owned by Group W, a defense contractor with close ties to fellow Gang of 13 member Duke Cunningham. 

Roy Blunt has always been a protege of Majority Leader Tom DeLay.  Their ties run deep and they share the same ethical standards.  So the reason Roy Blunt didn't try to defend his behavior in response to CREW's report, is because he doesn't see anything wrong with it, and that's the most alarming part of all.