Yesterday I had the honor of attending a small gathering of political activists. These citizens gathered together to consider whether they would support Shak Hill‘s quest to become Virginia’s 10th Congressional District’s Member in the House of Representatives. I think Hill got their backing. Why? Hill did three things.
- He explained why the incumbent, Barbara Comstock, needs to be defeated. That is the subject of this post.
- He convinced his audience he would do a better job of representing them. That will be part 2.
- He explained how he can win. That will be part 3.
Why Does Barbara Comstock Need To Be Defeated?
Comstock’s Votes Reek Of Hypocrisy
From the standpoint of our country the most serious problem is how Comstock votes. Although Comstock runs as a Conservative, Hill argues she does not vote as one. Hill makes the case on his web site, Why Barbara Must Go.
How does Hill make his case? He does two things. He links to the ratings provided by a variety of Conservative organizations, and he points to specific votes that Comstock made on issues we all care about. Since there is not much point in copying Hill’s webpage, I suggest you visit Why Barbara Must Go.
Comstock Needs To Explain Her Role In Administering The House’s Sexual Misconduct Slush Fund
Google Barbara Comstock sexual harassment. What you will get are a lot of stories explaining how hard Comstock is working to expose sexual harassment in Congress. However, Shak Hill has a blog post that suggest Comstock actually had a significant role in the cover up, Release Sexual Misconduct Names – Now.
Comstock is on the Committee on House Administration. As these reports explain, the Committee on House Administration administered a sexual misconduct slush fund. Unfortunately, this does not seem to be a story that much interests the main stream news media.
- Congress’ sexual harassment system, decoded (politico.com): Politico.com is a Liberal publication which emphasizes both parties have issues with sexual harassment, and it tries to portray the Republican Party as not wanting to deal with the issue. Admittedly, mandatory sexual harassment awareness training, which is the Republican Party’s “fix”, is a laughable “solution”.
- Benson: Congressional ‘Slush Fund’ to Pay Accusers Is the Swampiest, Most DC Thing Ever (insider.foxnews.com) and Congressional Sexual Harassment Settlements in Spotlight as Pressure to Lift Veil of Secrecy Grows (breitbart.com): The real scandal is that taxpayer funds are being used to cover over sexual harassment allegations. Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) has introduced a resolution (H.R.4494 – Congressional Accountability and Hush Fund Elimination Act) to deal with this problem. DeSantis bill would prohibit the use of public funds in payment of an award or settlement in connection with an act of sexual harassment or sexual assault. His resolution would also prohibit the imposition of a nondisclosure agreement on any party as a condition for receiving an award if the violation consists of an act of sexual harassment or sexual assault.
- The Secretive, Taxpayer-Financed Settlement Fund Used by Lawmakers Accused of Sexual Harassment (dailysignal.com): The most interesting thing about this article is that it points out that Comstock is the sponsor of a resolution that would require “all House members, officers, employees, including interns, detailees, and fellows” to complete “anti-harassment and anti-discrimination training” during each annual session of Congress. This does not appear to be a serious fix.
- Secretive taxpayer funds used to settle lawsuit against Gregory Meeks (nypost.com): This article provides an example of how the slush fund was used.
- Here’s How Much The House Has Paid In Recent Sexual Harassment Settlements (huffingtonpost.com): This article provides some data.
According to the data, there were at least three settlements related to sexual harassment claims involving unnamed House members’ offices from 2008 to 2012, totaling $115,000. That was part of a total of more than $340,000 in settlements involving House offices, which also included various cases of discrimination.
Again, it is worth observing that there does not seem to be much interest in the news media about the role of the members of the Committee on House Administration. Consider how the news media went after Judge Roy Moore. Consider how the news media went after the Catholic Church when it accused priests of pedophilia. Here we have juicy stories of sexual misconduct by the powerful, and the members of Committee on House Administration were the people most responsible for preventing this misuse of public funds. Yet the news media has little to say about it. Is that because Barbara Comstock an Establishment Republican? Is the Establishment news media just protecting one of their own?
Note that Senate does not appear to have to similar mechanism for covering up sexual misconduct scandals. So this particular ethical lapse appears to be peculiar to the House of Representatives.
He sounds like a really good guy (6 kids of his own and they fostered 46 others? That is a very caring family). I’d vote for him.
Not sure of the analysis on Barbara Comstock. I don’t like the way she has voted on a few issues, just scanning the list (especially transgender surgery for military members, and the Planned Parenthood funding). The only reason I’d want to see the list of accused (Congresspeople) would be their hypocrisy. They wanted to eliminate the Convening Authority for military trials (for sexual assault cases exclusively), which the Senate has already determined is a necessary element for fail trial (on a level comparable to what civilians have). They pushed hard for that, so I’m not very sympathetic to their personal concerns related.
But ultimately I hold the same views on that as I do for others…there are any number of reasons a person would receive a payoff for dropping a case. Cases are expensive and time consuming, and I’ve seen far too many frivolous EO complaints to believe they’re all based on fact or truth.
One article offered a clue: “Although the amount of the settlement was never made public, the funds were provided by the Congressional Office of Compliance, an agency set up in 1995 to resolve labor and other disputes, including sexual-harassment complaints, brought by congressional staffers against lawmakers.”
So, it isn’t a slush fund exclusively for hushing up sexual harassment claims. It’s a labor dispute fund (Congressional staffers are overworked and grossly underpaid anyway).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just to add to my last comment, for context. People who are overworked and underpaid (those who feel they are treated unfairly) tend to file more lawsuits. For example, the folks who work for lodging here file the most complaints (they are underpaid by comparison to some other bases nearby…the leadership is attempting to raise their salaries but since it’s government and they’re largely constrained to survey results only every five years, it’s a difficult process). Childcare workers are the next most likely to file EO complaints.
Keep in mind almost all of these workers are both minorities and women…so they are filing sexual harassment and racial discrimination claims against others of their same race and gender.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Was the fund used for other purposes besides sexual harrasment? Yes, and that is something I should have emphasized. Yet that just provides another way they buried what appears to be a hush fund.
When the government’s money is used to pay people off in a legal settlement, only in the most extraordinary circumstances should the circumstances involved be kept secret. That is the problem. They hid what the guiltless would not have hidden.
LikeLike