Four years after news of the Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) scandal broke, the controversy surrounding Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) was handled much more responsibly by House leadership. CREW Executive Director Melanie Sloan compares the two sex impropriety scandals in this op-ed at Politico:

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington regularly condemns politicians for disgraceful conduct. It is a rare day when we can praise someone for getting it right. Today is one of those days.

Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.) may be ranting to anyone who will listen that House majority leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) forced him out of Congress because he voted against health care reform. But the truth is that Hoyer stood up against sexual harassment of staff members.

In early February, a top Massa aide sought advice from Hoyer about how to handle allegations that Massa had sexually harassed one of his male aides. Hoyer told him to turn the information over to the House Ethics Committee — or Hoyer would report the allegations himself. The staffer told the ethics panel and was interviewed twice by investigators, who also interviewed other top Massa aides.

Contrast Hoyer’s conduct with that of many members of Congress in another recent scandal.

Click here to read the rest of her column.

The controversy surrounding Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) and his hastily announced resignation is taking on a new and bizarre twist. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has called the congressman's claims that a conspiracy forced him out "silly and ridiculous."

Meanwhile, Roll Call provides this snapshot of the work environment inside Rep. Massa's office:

During his weekly radio show Sunday on New York station WKPQ Power 105 FM, Massa, a retired Naval officer, acknowledged that his “salty” language had at times offended members of his own staff.

“I am guilty of using language [that] I am sure that would turn someone’s hair white. But it was in the privacy of my own home and in the privacy of my inner office,” Massa said.

... One incident in January, Massa continued, prompted him to issue a staff-wide memorandum, requiring everyone in his office — himself included — to adhere to “a higher standard” of behavior.

“I said something that was out of bounds. I said, ‘I had to go lick lollipops to raise money.’ Now you can use your imagination to know what I actually said,” Massa recalled. “It was inappropriate. I actually had someone on the staff say, ‘Come on now boss,’ and I said, ‘You’re right, I’m sorry.’”

New York Gov. David Paterson's recent announcement that he would not seek re-election followed allegations that the governor's office may have tried to interfere with a domestic violence case. Yet New York isn't the only state where ethics is making the news.

* In North Carolina, the state commission that regulates alcoholic beverage sales may draft a voluntary ethics code in the wake of stories that raised ethics concerns. According to one newspaper, Gov. Beverly Perdue is pushing the state commission to ban gifts that "might be perceived as swaying booze buying decisions."

* In Utah, legislative leaders have pushed their own ethics bills in hopes of heading off the momentum for ballot initiatives that citizens groups are proposing as ethics reform. In this op-ed column, a business leader cites the state House Majority Leader's recent statement dissing citizen-led reform as proof why an initiative is needed: "Could there be a more resounding endorsement for putting this initiative on the ballot and letting the people of Utah weigh in on this important matter?"

* In Connecticut, a former state prosecutor has agreed to pay a $2,000 fine to settle a complaint brought by the state's ethics office. The state panel stated that L. Mark Hurley violated ethics rules by "using his access to funds paid by . . . defendants for his own personal use."

* In Florida, a Tea Party activist has filed an ethics complaint against a state legislator concerning travel expenses and campaign finance rules.

Amid the fallout over ethics scandals, Slate's Christopher Beam writes that the more things change, the more they stay the same:

When Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006 on a pledge to "drain the swamp" of corruption that is Washington, D.C., it seemed that Republicans would never escape the muck. Now, with November approaching, not only have Republicans reached dry land, they're poised to drown Democrats in their own ethical filth.

What's changed? Very little -- and that's the point. It's not that Republicans have become saints and Democrats have become devils. It's that Democrats are in power.

Beam notes that the staggering setback suffered by Republicans in the 2006 election was due to several scandals surrounding GOP Reps. Tom DeLay, Randy "Duke" Cunningham and others. Beam adds:

The most reliable predictor of which party will find itself enmeshed in scandal is which one is in power.

"I've always called elections the opportunity to throw the bums out and throw a new set of bums in," says Larry Sabato, political analyst and prognosticator extraordinaire of the University of Virginia. "Partisans never believe that. They think their side is golden and the opposition is a bunch of second cousins to Beelzebub."

On NPR's "Morning Edition" today, Cokie Roberts predicted that ethics scandals will have a significant impact on this year's elections.

She also summarized the critical role that ethics scandals have played in recent decades in shifting control of Congress from one party to the other.

CREW has been highly critical of ethical lapses by Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), but we also recognize there is plenty of hypocrisy among some who have attacked Rangel. As Salon's Joe Conason notes:

... as the Republicans and their media epigones celebrate Rangel’s downfall, the contrast with their own typical tolerance of corruption in their own ranks is instructive.

... Five years ago, when (former Republican Congressman Tom) DeLay came under intense pressure from prosecutors, the press and watchdog groups, the National Review urged conservatives to rally around him in an editorial, noting dismissively that "many of the offenses DeLay is being accused of -— taking foreign trips funded by outside groups, attending events with lobbyists -— are committed by every congressman on Capitol Hill."

Of course taking a foreign trip funded by an outside group (with corporate support) is precisely the transgression for which the ethics committee admonished Rangel.

But the same National Review editorial suggested that official rebukes by the ethics committee are unimportant anyway, at least when directed at a Republican leader: "The [ethics] committee did warn DeLay to be more careful, the ‘admonishment’ that has played in the media as an official sanction, which it wasn't." In short, they didn’t believe an admonishment by the ethics committee was enough to get rid of DeLay, but it is reason enough to throw out Rangel ...

It would be nice to see members of both political parties treat ethics as something more than just a weapon they brandish during election years to beat up on the other party.

The fact that this is an election year had more than just a little to do with Rep. Charles Rangel's (D-NY) decision to step down as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. CREW's Melanie Sloan told the Washington Independent that the Rangel decision "didn’t happen in a vacuum." As she explained:

"Midterm elections are only eight months away and voters have made it abundantly clear that they care about ethics, even if members of Congress only pretend to.

"By forcing Rep. Rangel out, Democrats undercut Republican efforts to portray them as soft on ethics, the very strategy that returned Democrats to the majority in the 2006 elections."

This editorial in today's New York Times urges Gov. David Paterson to resign unless he can provide a satisfactory explanation for his role in a legal case involving one of his top aides.

The Times writes:

It now seems clear that, at the very least, [Gov. Paterson] tried to arrange a ham-handed cover-up to avert a scandal involving a top aide. There are also disturbing signs that he or other state officials may have unlawfully intervened to protect the aide from accusations of domestic violence.

... If he can show that he did no wrong, he must do so fully and immediately. If not, he should resign.

The tale is sordid. The governor’s aide, David Johnson, is accused by his former girlfriend, Sherr-una Booker, of attacking her last Halloween. Ms. Booker obtained two orders of protection against him. In her first court appearance, she said that the State Police had tried to stop her from going to court. The judge noted bruises on her arms.

The possibility of a Paterson resignation looms exactly two years to the month after Gov. Eliot Spitzer resigned after revelations that he had been a client of a prostitution ring.

Georgia's voters should ask themselves if the real reason why Rep. Nathan Deal (R-GA) announced today he's resigning from Congress is because he needs to "devote my full energies to the campaign for governor."

I'm sure it's a mere coincidence that Deal has been under investigation by the House ethics committee. His resignation is an easy way to void that probe before it could reach its conclusion.

In this blog post, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports:

Deal has been the subject of two inquiries by congressional investigators into a Deal’s role in a business with the state that earned his company $1.5 million from 2004 through 2008.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported in August that Deal and a business partner obtained the lucrative state business without competition and that Deal personally intervened with state officials to fight proposed changes to the operation. Deal denied any wrongdoing in his business dealings.

CREW's Melanie Sloan was quoted in the AJC blog post.

One noteworthy point: in December, Deal’s campaign released a statement that took a pot-shot at a rival politician who had resigned her elected office. Back then, the Deal campaign declared:

"Nathan Deal has taken an oath to serve the people of Georgia and has a clear record of completing his terms."

I guess Deal's record just became very un-clear.

Today the House ethics committee formally concluded its investigation into seven members of Congress with troubling ties to the now-defunct lobbying firm called PMA Group. The committee's decision to clear all seven members of wrongdoing was greeted with disdain by Melanie Sloan, executive director of CREW:

"What a surprise that the Ethics Committee would once again clear members of Congress of wrongdoing. Apparently, in the committee’s view, no member of Congress ever earmarks as a result of a campaign contribution.

"Of course, the committee also determined that PMA Group lobbyists and their clients universally believed that the chances of obtaining an earmark were directly related to the amount of campaign contributions they made to members of Congress. But, hey, why let a little inconsistency like that get in the way of clearing members of wrongdoing –- the raison d’etre of the committee.”