Plain Sight Corruption: Senator Burr and Rape Victims

Jamie Leigh Jones is an American who was gang raped by her co-workers while working for a defense contractor in Iraq. Her employer tried to cover up the rape and prevent her from filing charges in court – by forcing her to use a private arbitrator chosen by the company. They had the right to insist upon an arbitrator, the company maintained, because a clause in their contract with Jones required it.

Last month, Senator Al Franken (D-MN) offered an amendment to the Defense Appropriations Bill to change this. His bill would forbid the Defense Department from entering into contracts with companies that force their employes to arbitrate claims of rape.

Thirty Republican Senators opposed Franken's amendment. Many of them had received large contributions from defense contractors and the Chamber of Commerce, both keen to lower the costs of “disputes,” apparently regardless of who it hurts.

Senator Richard Burr (R-NC) is one of the senators who voted with his special interest contributors and against victims such as Jamie Leigh Jones. He is also one of the senators, as we have now shown with a poll that we commissioned in North Carolina, who voted against the views of the overwhelming majority of his own constituents. 74% of North Carolinians support the Franken Amendment — including a majority of both Republicans and Democrats. 

So why did Burr vote against the views of his constituents?

When we told those participating in our commissioned poll that Burr had taken over $700,000 from defense contractors and the Chamber of Commerce, a majority then believed that they knew why he did what he did. 47% believed he voted the way he voted "because of the money" compared with just 34% who believed he voted the way he did because he thought it was right. A clear majority, moreover, believed the contributions "hurt his judgment" (52%). Add the facts about money, and for most, the puzzle of Burr's behavior became clear. 

This is the point we have made again and again and again. People can quibble about whether money caused a representative to vote one way or another. Some may believe they would have voted that way regardless of a contribution. Others might insist that the representative can separate the influence of money from the question of what's right.

But this way of framing the issue of influence simply misses the point. It imagines that the only relevant question of corruption is whether the soul of some senator has been stolen. 

Corrupted souls, however, is not the only — or even the most important — kind of corruption. Forget whether Burr's soul was corrupted because of the money he took. Even if it wasn't, his behavior has the obvious and undeniable effect of weakening — or we might say, "corrupting" — trust in Congress. The more people see congressmen acting against their constituents but for their contributors, the more people believe "money buys results" in Congress. In North Carolina alone, those cynics outnumber the believers 5 to 1 (67% to 14%).

Congress has got to wake up to the fact that most Americans don't trust it. The vast majority believe the institution has no integrity; that it is an elaborate cover for influence paid for through campaign cash. And Congress must recognize that its own behavior has produced this view. The spectacle of cash pouring into campaign pockets destroys the public's trust in that institution. Congress is responsible for that spectacle. 

We've launched a campaign to hold Senator Burr accountable — not because he voted in a way that most of us disagree with, but because he voted against the interest of his own constituents while for the interests of significant contributors. Because, in other words, he voted in a way that will simply confirm what most Americans already believe: that money buys results in Congress.

Burr's behavior is a kind of corruption — call it, corruption in plain sight. And we will continue to attack representatives who behave in this way, at least until they commit themselves irrevocably to ending this system of corruption by co-sponsoring Citizen Funded Elections.

Sign our petition to Senator Burr here. More importantly, help us push the only reform that can begin to undo the extraordinary cynicism that now marks America's view of this, its central institution of democracy: Congress.

In a system of Citizen Funded Elections, voting against the views of your constituents is a profile in courage. In the system we now have, when that vote is also a vote in favor of your contributors, it is to most a simple confirmation of how deeply corrupt this government is.

 

Follow Lawrence Lessig on Twitter: www.twitter.com/lessig

Comments

[zoooni]

Sen. Burr has been in Washington too long. Years ago when he was a Representative I believe he meant well. I watched committee hearings,floor speeches,etc. I think power surely does corrupt these men. Unfortunately,their power is coming from the pockets of lobbyists, not from the people anymore. We have to wake up and look at the candidates;before we vote them in.

[hasheville]

Thank you! I've already written Burr but now I can email this petition to friends that would support it here in NC!

[mandymarleyandme]

The best evidence that these contributions are effecting the votes of our senators and congressmen?

The largest, most successful corporations in America are still contributing. If they weren't getting something for their investment would they still be shelling out millions of dollars a year?

[DanBest]

A woman was drugged, and gangraped by her co-workers. Have any of them been arrested? Was she the only one? Or were there others? How many? Doesn't she have the absolute right to confront her attackers and have her day in court? Why would KBR even think that this was the way to deal with something as heinious as a gang rape? Are they covering up for these rapists? Do they still work for KBR? Why aren't we all asking these questions? Why does a US senator even have to sponsor a bill like this? Why would Republicans think they could advocate mandatory arbitration for a gangrape? Would they consider this equitable justice if the person raped was their daughter? Mother? Sister? Wife? Do they have any shame or empathy at all? Or do they assume they'll get cover from favorable media outlets like FOX?

[Rimser]

When my husband and I move to NC next year, I look forward to working to on a campaign to unseat Senator Burr.

[USAFree1]

Criminal behavior should never be compromised by a contract with a business. If rape can be negotiated away, how about murder, arson, treason. Oh I forgot; it was during the Bush Administration and still is under the Obama Administration.

[JustDavid]

The problem is a total lack of integrity. How we fund elections will not change that although it might improve the perception. The elections themselves are the problem. Fund elections with public money and we will still be selecting leaders based on their position on Guns, Gays, and God.

We need a new system of selecting our leaders. Good grief, drawing names from a hat could only be an improvement.

[TXfemmom]

This issue comes down to common decency. Obviously, that is something that many politicians simply don't understand. The United States should never foster an arrangement whereby agents with contracts for the government can simply force employees to give up their rights, as in being able to seek justice in criminal or civil court. If we permit these companies to take away basic rights, granted in the Constitution, why are we at war to supposedly protect us?

KBR has been a poor shepard for its' employees and for the services they supply to our military during a time of war. They should not be granted the right to further erode the rights of American citizens. Common decency dictates that our government needs to protect its' citizens, especially in sexual crimes, and any numb skull, Republican or Democrat should just have that as part of their understanding and values. However, thirty Republican Senators fail to have that in their values.

[ellocoliberal]

Well Congress is well aware of this issue of complete distrust of it and its actions due to corporate money's obviously corrupting influence.

The GOP uses this as a successful voter suppression tactic, and the Democrats do a tight rope act to keep the money and sucker in the Demo votes.

Simple as that. When the tight rope breaks, and the Dems can no longer count on the votes of people who want corporate money and corruption out of US politics, then and only then will Dems consider reforming corporate campaign contributions (money does not equal free speech- that is a right of individual citizens only).

Creating a system without corporate cash and corruption will make health reform look easy and straight forward (which it is logically of course, but not politically).

The US society's political pendulum's swing will determine if either reform has any real chance or not. Momentum builds, then slips away.....

[RMJ50]

Lawrence Lessig states it well when he says that such corruption lessens confidence in congress. The changes which Obama and the Democrats have tried to cause has demonstrated on every front that corruption is rife. Consider the Stimulus Plan, Health Care, Climate Change, Mountain Top Mining, and the Israeli and Palestinian conflict. I had found myself in the past voting against candidates more than voting for candidates. In a democracy, I find this a bad way to have to vote.

[Abatis]

Lawrence Lessig is the man. I was so glad when he decided to to focus on ridding politics of monetary influence. Copyright laws are important, dont' get me wrong, but we need a person with his genius hammering this home right now.

Well done.

[Aaror]

If we publicly funded elections, and made the agency that provided the funding a department of the government (like the department of health and human services or the department of homeland defense) the department would be the smallest department in the government. All the money spent on elections is dwarfed by the money spent by any federal department.
I think the F-22 program cuts would pay for 2010's election, just to further point out the scope of the issue.
Public financing of campaigns would save the taxpayers money, hands down.
And by the way, you can still allow contributions from individuals, in cash or in kind, but there is a big difference between a race where one guy has a $100 million war chest and the other guy has a million, or a race where one guy has $200 million and the other guy has $101 million. So there is no first amendment issue, but contributions become far less important!

[TXfemmom]

Public funding of elections would go a long way toward correcting the corruption we now have.

Perhaps, the government needs to levy a fee on every individual in the United States, say of $10 a year. That should go into a fund, regulated by a Commission on Elections. Then, individuals could donate to the fund, as well, for particular candidates, but in limited amounts.

Say $25 for the office of House of Representatives, and $50 for the Senate, and $50 for someone running for President in the primary and $100 for the Presidency. No PACS, no corporations, or special interest groups allowed, period. The individuals making the donations COULD NOT BE IDENTIFIED TO THE CANDIDATE, so special groups could not say we arranged so much, etc.

This would force all candidates to use their funding wisely, permit every person in the United States effect who rules in the halls of Congress and in the White House, and force them to use other means, rather than hundreds of millions of dollars to get into office and then be in the claws of the rich and the special interest groups. If everyone could have an equal voice, and huge donations be eliminated, the will of the people would be the important thing for the elected, not the will of the rich and powerful. They would have to earn votes by voting as their constituents intend, and return the power to the many instead of the few.

[mandymarleyandme]

Who would get the funding? Republicans and Democrats only? This would effectively end the possibility of any third party ever rising to prominence in the US.

[TomR]

Here's an example of why it was important for Al Franken to be elected senator. You can bet Norm Coleman would never have pursued this line of questioning with someone representing a big defense contractor like KBR (former subsidiary of Halliburton where Dick Cheney was previously CEO):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3LQnuOxcLM

I think it's absolutely shameless for a corporation to try to weasel its way around a criminal situation like this.

- Tom

[enhancedvibes]

I think defense contractors having a clause like this in their employee contracts at all shows incidents like this or any ole incident involving their employees is not an uncommon occurrence.

[karinova]

As of 2007, "Jamie Leigh [Jones] says she has been contacted by ELEVEN OTHER WOMEN who have also been assaulted by contractors in Iraq."
[Emphasis added, obviously!]

http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/19/kbr-gang-rape-survivor-says-11-more-women-like-her/

[doublels]

Let's hope all the stats on people dissapproving of him, will vote & get him out of there at his next election.

[Thabit]

What planent are you living on ... i feel more represented in the senate by Al Franken than by my own senators and they arent that bad . Al Franken for Senate Majority leader cause he obviously has more backbone than Harry Reid

[bzb]

It's not unusual that Senator Burr would vote against what his constituents wants. After all you are talking about the same man that told his wife to make a 'run-on' the banks while the whole economy was collapsing w/out telling his constituents. So why would this be any different for Burr? I just hope the great people of NC will elect a Senator next time that has there best interest at heart.