If the Democrats get into power, I propose an honor code:

[originalpckelly]

Poll question: If the Democrats get into power, I propose an honor code:

"It is the sense of We The People of the Democratic Party, that any member who shall be shown with substantial evidence, guilty of corruption or other unacceptable behavior, be removed at the very next primary or ejected from Congress with the full support of the Democratic caucus in the members' respective house.

If a member, shown to be guilty of corruption or other unacceptable behavior, is not unanimously condemned by their respective caucus members, those who shall have supported the member will themselves be removed at the next primary election.

If the period until the next Democratic Party primary for the corrupt (or otherwise guilty) member (and their corrupt supporters) is 6 or less months, the member will not be removed but challenged in the primary.

If the period until the next Democratic Party primary for the corrupt (or otherwise guilty) member (and their corrupt supporters) is more than 6 months, the respective Democratic caucus itself shall raise the issue of ejection from the respective house.

If the caucus members in the corrupt member's respective house refuse to bring the issue of ejection to the floor, and the charge of corruption or other unacceptable behavior is substantial, the caucus members will be challenged at the very next primary themselves.

The caucus of the member in concern shall vote on the matter of ejection, and then shall post in an easily acceptable forum, the results of the vote. This will allow The People of the Democratic Party to review for themselves the offending members and determine whether or not primary challenges are suitable.

Failure to post an open record of the vote on the matter of ejection, will result in primary challenges for those responsible for the obstruction."

Poll result (6 votes)
Great idea, we should give the American people confidence in our integrity and honesty.	(6 votes, 100%)	Vote
It's isn't a bad idea, but there is one thing that I don't like about it:	(0 votes, 0%)	Vote
It's isn't a bad idea, but there are a couple things that need to be changed:	(0 votes, 0%)	Vote
I don't like the idea very much at all:	(0 votes, 0%)	Vote
Other:	(0 votes, 0%)	Vote

[Dogmudgeon]

1. Don't we already have something like that?

You'd have to check the Ethics resolutions passed by the Democratic Party. But I think we ("we" as in Democratic partisans) already have a formal code of Ethics.

--p!

[originalpckelly]

2. No, WE THE PEOPLE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY!

Not the people in Congress, but the people at the bottom.

It is an agreement we the people can enforce on the top. It is ridiculous to expect members to police themselves, so any ethics resolution for Congressional Dems passed by Congressional Dems is not going to work out.

You simply cannot have people supervise themselves.

That's why it is an ethics code with electoral consequences, because that is the only time when we can have a material impact.

It might be edited to include funding a member who is corrupt as well.

[originalpckelly]

3. Even from a purely political consequences aspect...

removing corrupt members is a good thing because it reduces the ability of the other side to use the charge of corruption.

Just look at Will Jefferson, he could have been ejected when we found a sting had been done on him and the FBI found $90,000 of the $100,000 they gave him in his freezer. We wouldn't be hearing any static about it, and Republicans couldn't try to use it to deflect from their own far greater corruption problems.