Lawmakers propose bills to block pensions for members convicted of crimes or misconduct
Updated
Updated · The Washington Post · Apr 26
Lawmakers propose bills to block pensions for members convicted of crimes or misconduct
5 articles · Updated · The Washington Post · Apr 26
New House and Senate bills would strip pensions from former members like Eric Swalwell and Tony Gonzales, who remain eligible despite resigning amid scandal and allegations of sexual misconduct.
The House bill targets a broad range of crimes and staff relationships, while Sen. Hawley’s Senate bill focuses narrowly on felony sex offenses. Critics warn the proposals could deny pensions without criminal convictions.
Current law only revokes pensions for convictions related to public corruption or national security. Lawmakers debate whether reforms should require convictions or also cover unethical but non-criminal conduct.
Is stripping pensions the best way to enforce ethics, or are other reforms more urgent?
Could stricter pension rules deter qualified candidates from running for office?
How many ex-members get pensions after resigning amid serious ethics allegations?
How can the public trust a congressional ethics process that operates largely in secret?
Does revoking benefits without a court conviction set a dangerous legal precedent?
Do corporate 'bad actor' clauses offer a better model for handling official misconduct?