Duke's Still a Hazard

Good ol' boys Bo and Luke Duke are coming back this summer, this time on the silver screen. If the movie flops, it could be yet another embarrassment to California's filmmaking industry amid a summer of not-so-blockbuster ticket sales. But the greater hazard to California's reputation may come from another Duke. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, the congressman from San Diego, is up to his ears in scandal.

Duke's troubles began when the press learned last spring that he had sold his house in an unlisted transaction to Mitchell Wade, a lobbyist for a defense contractor. Wade paid Duke $1,675,000 for the house in 2003, $300,000 less than it was assessed by the county for. Wade turned around and sold it at market value about a year later for $700,000 less than he paid Duke. Given the red-hot nature of California's housing market, either Wade's a complete idiot when it comes to real estate, or he was looking for a way to give a congressman a bribe. As in Waylon Jennings song, that's "jus' a little bit more than the law will allow."

Duke then took up residence in Wade's 42-foot yacht, named the Duke Stir, docked at the Washington Marina. Duke says he paid the docking fees for the boat, but didn't pay any rent on top of that - a potential violation of House ethics rules.

MZM, the company that Wade lobbies for, has received $163 million in defense contracts over the past three years. Cunningham is a member a key congressional committee that oversees defense contracts.

Interestingly, Cunningham had sold his own yacht to a New York real estate developer in 2002. That developer's nephew then floated a $1.1 million mortgage to Cunningham so he could buy a new mansion back in California, and also helped finance a condo for Cunningham in Virginia. Coincidentally, the developer was seeking a pardon for a federal conviction on kickback and bribery services. Cunningham referred him to a law firm for help.

The FBI has searched the Duke Stir and Wade's offices for incriminating documents. Federal prosecutors have put together a grand jury to investigate Cunningham. Sing it Waylon, "beats all you ever saw, he's in trouble with the law . . ."

Duke has read the writing on the wall and announced that he will not seek re-election in 2006. But this still leaves Californians with a congressional representative who is ethically tainted at best, and a criminal at worst. Rather than clinging to office for another year and a half, Duke should step down now so that someone who can better represent his constituents can replace him in a special election.

More importantly, we need to seriously revamp our elections systems, campaign finance laws, and ethics rules to keep this sort of thing from happening again. Duke represents what's known as a "safe seat," meaning that his congressional district was drawn to include so many more Republicans than Democrats that it basically assured that a Republican was elected. Further, Cunningham outspent his opponent by more than four to one in his last general election. Using the power of incumbency to raise a formidable war chest allowed Duke to scare off any Republican challenger in the 2000 and 2004 primaries. He defeated James Hart in the 2002 primary 87% to 13% in a race that Hart reported no campaign fundraising to the FEC.

When an electoral system rigged by gerrymandering and big money essentially guarantees re-election, it is all too easy for members of congress like Duke Cunningham to let power go to their heads and money creep into their wallets. Until we change the rules of the game to provide greater accountability to voters, there will be many hazards that undermine the very fabric of our representative democracy.