In response to a recent Gallup poll which recorded record-high anti-incumbent sentiment toward Congress, Yahoo! Voices asked contributors whether their representatives deserved to be re-elected.
COMMENTARY | Representing California's 37th congressional district, Laura Richardson has been at the center of financial controversies and ethics panel investigations. I could have overlooked those, save the sudden decision to play the race card. Shame on you!
On her U.S. Congress biographical page, Representative Richardson self-identifies as a former businesswoman and Long Beach city council member. She entered the 110th Congress by special election to fill the position of the late Juanita Millender-McDonald.
Rumors of financial irregularities and mortgage shenanigans have followed Richardson since her run for Congress. Politico reported in July 2010 that the original charges involved the receipt of an "improper gift in the refinancing of a house and failed to properly disclose details about her property, income and liabilities." She was cleared of wrongdoing by the House ethics committee. The committee decided that the fraud was perpetrated by her mortgage broker who tweaked paperwork without Richardson's knowledge.
Do I believe this turn of events? Absolutely! During the 2007 to 2010 time frame, the California mortgage industry was in upheaval, and prettying up the numbers for the sake of mortgage approval was not unheard of. On her website, Shelly Irizarry quotes Inman News Features' mortgage fraud series that highlights California's connection to the practice. There is little doubt that Richardson could have fallen victim to a scammer.
No, what instead clinches the deal for me -- against re-election of Representative Laura Richardson -- is her second run-in with the ethics committee and her subsequent assertion that it "singled her out for scrutiny because she's African-American." Quoting the Associated Press, Yahoo! News reports on Nov. 4 that Richardson is now under scrutiny for the inappropriate use of her staff for "political purposes."
There is still more than the blatant use of the race card at stake. The report points out that Richardson asserts unfair treatment, in part because of well-known transgressions of other House members not under investigation. What are you saying, Ms. Richardson? Someone else's bending of the rules excuses your foray into the practice? You had no problem with taxpayers' footing bills for your colleagues, as long as you could have a piece of the pie?
The third strike against Richardson is her plan to "explore the issue of whether the Ethics Committee has engaged in discriminatory conduct in pursuing two investigations against me while simultaneously failing to apply the same standards to, or take the same actions against, other members -- of whom the overwhelming majority are white males." Do you now blame sexism as well as racism? You champion imagined conspiracies rather than take responsibility for your ethics violations?
No, Representative Richardson, your situational ethics do not deserve re-election.
Sources
U.S. Congress, "Richardson, Laura"
Politico, "Ethics panel clears Richardson" by Jonathan Allen & John Bresnahan
GlenSold, "Mortgage fraud: Real estate's white-collar epidemic" by Jessica Swesey/Inman News Features
Yahoo! News, "Ethics committee to investigate Rep. Richardson" by Larry Margasak/AP
There are no comments yet