Nathan Deal left more than a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives behind when he retired last month to run for governor of Georgia. He departed Washington just before the release of an Office of Congressional Ethics report that alleges the former 9th District congressman was guilty of violating ethics rules. Mr. Deal, a Republican, denies all, but his response is not sufficient to support his claim of innocence. Georgians should demand a more forthright explanation from a man who wants to be governor.
The ethics panel suggests that Mr. Deal may have violated House ethics rules when he met with Georgia officials to lobby for a state program that was financially beneficial to his auto salvage business. The report also suggests that Mr. Deal exceeded the Congressional cap on outside income when he reported $75,000 in wages in 2008 from the business. The limit is $25,830. The panel, however, can not pursue its case. By law, its investigation ended when Mr. Deal left federal office.
Still, Mr. Deal must respond to the accusations. He’s failed to do so in a serious manner. He blamed the wage problem on an accounting error, but provided no testimony or documentation to support the claim.
On the issue of lobbying, Mr. Deal was no more forthcoming. On Tuesday, he said that he had done nothing wrong and that the charges were part of a politically-motivated conspiracy to torpedo his bid for governor. His list of conspirators includes the office that released the report, the media, the state Department of Revenue and the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a watchdog group that has asked the Department of Justice to instigate a criminal investigation into Mr. Deal’s activities. There’s little in Mr. Deal’s response to support such a conspiracy.
The Office of Congressional Ethics has a hard-won reputation for impartiality. It is governed by a six-member board divided equally between Democrats and Republicans. Mr. Deal’s charge that its staff is controlled by House speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, and that she somehow was able to manipulate the office to issue a report detrimental to Mr. Deal is baseless.
There’s no reason to suspect that any group identified by Mr. Deal as a conspirator has an especial animus against him. All are simply reporting his conduct — the allegations against the would-be governor were first raised by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution — or fulfilling their mandates to uphold the law or to serve the public interest. Mr. Deal wants voters to think otherwise.
He has little choice. He’s engaged in a GOP primary with six other candidates to replace Gov. Sonny Perdue. If the allegations are not refuted, they likely will have a negative impact on his campaign. Mr. Deal can end the controversy by giving up talk of a conspiracy and by inviting impartial investigation of the charges. That he has not done so gives credence to the possibility that some of his activities while in Congress were ethically questionable.