Lifestyles of candidates should be fair game in campaigns

Taxpayers have paid out nearly $1 million per year in settlements to congressional employees who have been harassed or otherwise treated badly by their political bosses over the past 14 years, according to records from the Office of Compliance.
The payouts stem from hundreds of complaints from employees, some of whom may have been sexually harassed or treated so poorly that third-party mediators were brought in to negotiate cash payoffs to settle the cases.

In fiscal year 2007, for example, the OOC — an agency that administers a confidential dispute resolution system — settled 38 cases, with 25 resulting in monetary awards worth $4 million. In fiscal year 2009 — the most recent year reported by the OOC — the office settled 13 cases for nearly $830,000.

These settlements may be especially relevant if aides who were allegedly abused by former Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.) seek restitution. Massa resigned under allegations that he sexually harassed male staffers. Quite often, the harassment cases, after a secretive mediation process, can land staffers retroactive raises, vacation time and cash payouts for their perceived pain and suffering.

For privacy reasons, the details of all these cases — including the names of the victims and the alleged harassers — are almost never made public. Lawmakers, regardless of whether they are guilty of workplace violations, do not pay a dime for the settlements, while taxpayers foot the bill for the lawyers.

An unprecedented new report to be released Tuesday by the OOC sheds light on the larger problem of harassment in the congressional workplace — the OOC is often stymied by members of Congress and at times left largely powerless to inform employees about their workplace rights.

My take: If this much money is being squandered to pay for the misdeeds of some politicians, doesn't this remove any valid argument that lifestyles are not a suitable topic for political campaigns? Obviously, homosexuality would seem to be a prime contender. But so would alcoholism, habitual drunkenness, drug abuse, promiscuity and habitual lying.

There is no practical way of limiting the scope once the informal and unwritten rule against lifestyle campaigning has been abolished. So what? It would make campaigns more lively and interesting.