As I said, Delay was not convicted of any ethical issues, only the 'appearance' of impropriety.
As you are aware, it does not suffice for any House Member to assert that his or her actions violated no law, or violated no specific prohibition or requirement of the House Rules. The House Code of Official Conduct broadly requires that every House Member, officer and employee “conduct himself at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House.” It is particularly important that members of the House leadership, who are the most publicly visible Members, adhere to this requirement scrupulously
Delay was not guilty of any crime or even violating some explicit rule of the House.
He was just 'guilty' of giving the 'appearance' of violating some arcane rules.
The standard used *is* the appearance of impropriety. When DeLay gave the appearance of impropriety, he violated House rules. That's why the Ethics Committee admonished him.
Seriously, the cult of personality surrounding DeLay reminds me of the cult of personality surrounding Clinton. Democrats refused to believe Clinton was immoral and unethical.
I had hoped that Republicans were better than Democrats.
As you are aware, it does not suffice for any House Member to assert that his or her actions violated no law, or violated no specific prohibition or requirement of the House Rules.
I don't care what DeLay asserts any more than I care what Ronnie Earle asserts.
With regard to the solicitation and receipt of campaign contributions, the Committee has clearly stated that a Member may not make any solicitation that may create even an appearance that, because of a contribution, a contributor will receive or is entitled to either special treatment or special access to the Member in his or her official capacity. This point is made on p. 34 of the Campaign Activity booklet that the Committee issued in December 2001.
When DeLay made a solicitation that created the appearance of impropriety, he violated House rules.