Can ethics issues tip party control of Congress?

A Democratic campaign consultant recently said he was urging his clients to emphasize three themes in their election fights against Republicans: first, the economy, including the affordability of such things as food, fuel, healthcare and housing; second, the war in Iran, including the lack of coherent objectives and goals, and its seeming interminability; and third, ethics in government — the sexual and financial scandals in Congress and the executive branch.

I have previously opined that the recent spike in congressional sexual misconduct cases, mostly involving members’ office staff, may affect the outcomes in those specific districts and races, but will not have a disproportionate impact on one party or the other nationally. Sexual misconduct is an equal-opportunity destroyer.

In looking over ethics cases in this Congress, there are slightly more Republicans than Democrats who have been tainted by ethics scandals. The unethical conduct charges being hurled at the administration, on the other hand, involving conflicts of interest, financial self-dealing, and use of law enforcement against political enemies, are legion. These do not seem to bother the public as much as sex scandals, but they can become a factor when the public perceives their cumulative effects on good governance.

Still, the odoriferous vapors rising inside the beltway cannot be ruled out as irrelevant to the upcoming midterm elections. It’s not just the smell of blooming algae and peeling blue paint fumes from the reflecting pool (though those do have a whiff of a no-bid contract vandal scandal ). The economics-ethics link could put Republicans at a serious electoral disadvantage this November.

How does the party that effectively controls all three branches fight back against these perceived ethical lapses? We have been through this before, every two decades or so, and the natural responses by those in power is: reform. I am reminded of one old congressional codger who had been up and down this hill so many times that he cried in exasperation, “Reform, reform, reform; that’s all we hear. As if things weren’t bad enough already.”

The motivation to reform under current circumstances is a natural response, though it is no guarantee of changing the image and behavior of Congress. One cannot hope to rejuvenate or eradicate all the bad apples in the barrel, let alone be cheered on from skeptical citizens on the sidelines.

But there are some signs of hope. A bipartisan effort is being made by Reps. Kat Cammack (R-Fla.) and Teresa Leger Fernandez (D-N.M.), chairs of their respective parties’ women’s caucuses, to present recommendations when the House reconvenes next month for streamlining the ethics process and making it more accessible for staff to report violations. The two lawmakers have the full support of Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) to pursue their reform efforts — offering them considerable legitimacy. Nevertheless, there are skeptics in the House who fear any reforms may open the door to frivolous or false complaints for partisan advantage.

The so-called ethics wars are not a recent development, and separating the wheat from the chaff has always been a major challenge for the Ethics Committee. Previous attempts to ensure full and thorough investigations while protecting accused members’ rights to due process have created so many built-in safeguards that timely action by the committee has often been stymied, especially with a backlog of complaints pending.

As a rule, an Ethics Committee report cannot be issued after a member has resigned since the House no longer has jurisdiction over that member and any findings or recommended punishment. The one exception made to that rule was in 2024 when Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) resigned from the House in November when nominated by President Trump for attorney general. Even though Gaetz withdrew his nomination a week later, the House Ethics committee still issued its adverse report on his conduct in December .

In late July 2026, just before the summer recess, House Republicans tried to inoculate themselves on a legitimate ethics conundrum by passing a bill that purported to bar members and their families from insider stock trading. But the bill had more holes in it than a bag of donuts. It was reported from the House Administration Committee on a straight party-line vote, and then passed the House, 232 to 198 , with only 13 Democrats voting in favor. It’s reportedly dead-on-arrival in the Senate.

Ethics games are less vicious than ethics wars, but they still send mixed signals to voters about how serious members are about policing themselves.

Don Wolfensberger is a 28-year congressional staff veteran, culminating as chief of staff of the House Rules Committee. He is author of, “Congress and the People: Deliberative Democracy on Trial” (2000), and, “Changing Cultures in Congress: From Fair Play to Power Plays” (2018).