Conflicts of interest

[Thomas Smith]

Are these rules ever enforced against members who do not want to recuse
themselves?  Could republican senators use this rule to compel Leiberman to
recuse himself, or Gore, as President of the Senate?

At 03:14 PM 11/30/00 -0500, you wrote:
>In fact, there are House and Senate rules that require members to recuse
>from participating in legislative actions in certain circumstances.  See
>H.R. Rule III(I), which states that "[e]very member . . . shall vote on
>each question put, unless he has a direct personal or pecuniary interest
>in the event of such question."  Thus, for example, Senator Lott recused
>from any involvement in the tobacco legislation considered by Congress in
>1998 because his brother-in-law was a lead attorney for the plaintiffs in
>the consolidated state litigation being reviewed by Congress.  Pending
>litigation, business ownerships, and the work of a Senator's wife on a
>matter have prompted other members of Congress to recuse from any
>involvement in particular legislation.   (I provide cites for these
>examples in The Recusal Alternative to Campaign Finance Legislation, 37
>Harv. J. Legis 69, 79-80 (2000), which argues that all campaign finance
>problems would be solved by requiring members of Congress to recuse from
>any matters affecting their campaign contributors, but that's another
>story). -- John
>
>At 10:07 AM 11/30/2000 -0800, you wrote:
> >>>>
>>There's no requirement members of COngress have to recuse themselves for
>>conflicts of interest.  If that were the case, there'd be few times
>>there'd be anyone to vote on anything.
>>This is politics-you get to vote your interests. -the  same thing applies
>>to the Republican majorities having the power to vote for Bush electors
>>in the state legislatures and the house.  Arguably, some members of
>>Congres shave favors to call from whoever wins, and they'd have conflicts
>>as well.
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Discussion list for con law professors
>>>[<mailto:CONLAWPROF at listserv.ucla.edu>mailto:CONLAWPROF at listserv.ucla.edu
>>>]On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
>>>Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 9:48 AM
>>>To: CONLAWPROF at listserv.ucla.edu
>>>Subject: Conflicts of interest
>>>
>>>
>>>        Prof. Griesel raises an excellent question, but let me highlight
>>> a related one: If the choice of whether to seat Republican or Democrat
>>> electors to seat falls to the House and the Senate, wouldn't Senator
>>> Lieberman and Vice-President Gore have to recuse themselves given their
>>> obvious (even more so than Governor Jeb Bush's) conflicts of interest?
>>>
>>>        In fact, if they do recuse themselves, and the vote otherwise
>>> falls along party lines, the vote will be 50-49 for the Republicans in
>>> the Senate, and also majority Republican in the House -- so Governor
>>> Jeb Bush's judgment won't need to be solicited.  It is only if Gore and
>>> Lieberman don't recuse, and the vote in the Senate goes 50-50 with Gore
>>> breaking the tie in favor of his and Senator Lieberman's electors, that
>>> Jeb Bush's certification will be the tiebreaker, and the question of
>>> Jeb Bush's recusal will arise.
>>>
>>>Curtis Griesel writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>If the selection of Florida electors finally falls to Governor Jeb Bush,
>>>wouldn't he have to recuse himself of that role given his obvious conflict
>>>of interest?
><<<<
>
>
>
>John Copeland Nagle
>Associate Professor
>Notre Dame Law School
>Notre Dame, IN 46556
>(219) 631-9407
>(219) 631-4197 (fax)
></blockquote></x-html>

Thomas A. Smith
Professor of Law
University of San Diego
5998 Alcala Park
San Diego CA 92110
619. 260. 2318
tacsmith at acusd.edu
tacsmith at home.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20001130/fea06783/attachment.htm