By Josephine Hearn

The Hill newspaper

March 8, 2006

 

House Democrats see more than a few parallels between themselves and the Republicans of the early '90s - a minority party hoping to capitalize on ethics scandals and voter discontent - but Democrats have opted against one pivotal component of the Republicans' success, the "Gang of Seven."

 

Back in 1992, seven Republican freshmen scandalized the Democratic-controlled chamber by exposing ethics abuses in the House bank and post office, forcing the release of the names of 355 lawmakers who had made overdrafts at the bank. They challenged both the Democratic Speaker and their own leaders. They appeared in a GQ-style black-and-white photo touting their efforts.

 

One of the seven, Rep. Jim Nussle (R-Iowa), then the youngest member of the House at 31, took to the floor with a bag over his head to protest House leaders' efforts to cover up the scandal.

 

Their efforts embarrassed more than a few members of their own party, but in the fall Republicans picked up 10 seats, setting the stage for their takeover of the House in 1994.

 

Despite this history and the similarities between those days and now, young Democrats say they don't need their own Gang of Seven.

 

"There is a distinction between 1994 and now," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), 47, who played a central role in recruiting House candidates this election cycle. "In '94 there was an effort to bring to the attention of people the fact that there were problems. Now the American people understand that there are problems in Washington. . The challenge this time is to show that it's an outgrowth of a Republican monopoly on power."

 

To that end, Democrats have focused their message on special-interest giveaways in Congress, arguing that Republican policies have hurt voters in healthcare, energy prices and tuition costs.

 

Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-Fla.), co-chairman of the Democrats' 30-Something Working Group, which regularly gives special-orders speeches in the evening, argued that voters care more about pocketbook issues than they do about the corruption of individual members of Congress.

 

"It's important that we focus on those issues because that's what the American people care about. They care about how it affects them," said Meek, 39.

 

Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio), the other co-chairman of the group, echoed those sentiments.

 

"They had to burn the House down and dirty up the Democrats. In our case, the House is already getting burned down. The Republicans are doing that themselves. Now we need to fill the void with ideas," said Ryan, 32.

 

The focus on Republican policy rather than individual corruption allows Democrats to sidestep the tricky issue of Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.), the target of a federal corruption probe. As a Democrat under federal investigation, Jefferson could undermine the Democrats' overarching election message that Republicans are the party of corruption. The only lawmaker subjected to a federal indictment thus far in the most recent congressional scandals was a Republican, former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif.), who was sentenced Friday to more than eight years in prison for having taken bribes.

 

Asked about Jefferson, Meek said that Democrats aren't talking about individual members.

 

"We don't spend time talking about members under federal investigation. Republicans have done so much to the American people that you don't have to focus on individual member issues," Meek said. "You're innocent until proven guilty," he added.

 

Republicans and Democrats alike have been loathe to lob bombs at each other, respecting an informal ethics truce that for nearly a decade has prohibited members from filing ethics complaints against other members. The only lawmaker to break that cease-fire was former Rep. Chris Bell (D-Texas), a freshman representative who filed a complaint against former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) after having lost his reelection bid.

 

Since Bell left Congress at the end of 2004, both sides have respected the truce, although the ethics committee has not functioned since the beginning of last year.

 

The Gang of Seven, by contrast, was willing to risk the embarrassment of members of its own party to publicize instances of wrongdoing. Its pursuit of the House bank scandal ultimately revealed 22 overdrafts made by the man who was then their mentor, Minority Whip Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.).

 

"I don't know if the Gang of Seven is the best model," cautioned Rep. Artur Davis (D-Ala.), 38. "They had a negative strategy to destabilize and disrupt. I don't think that's a good model. That's not the way to win a majority."

 

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), 39, another active member of the 30-Something Working Group, concurred.

 

"I think the difference was that the Gang of Seven really challenged their own leadership. We essentially agree with our leadership," she said. "If we took that next step, it wouldn't be in challenging our leadership, it would be in being more organized than we are now and developing an agenda for the 30-something group."

 

Wasserman Schultz noted that she was mulling whether the group could re-create the intensity of the Gang of Seven while focusing on an agenda tailored to young people.

 

"My staff and I have been talking about the Gang of Seven and how to take our efforts to that next level," she said.

 

Many Democratic newcomers noted that the young Republicans of the early '90s felt thwarted by their leadership, whereas young Democrats feel empowered by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

 

"Nancy has given us a lot of leeway to express ourselves in the 30-something group, allowing us to be involved in a very public way," Ryan noted. "There's not a whole lot more you can ask for.