Congress Wants a Purge. The Constitution Wants a Process.

I picture Capitol Hill the way it actually runs: fluorescent hallways, bitter coffee, and a stack of paper tall enough to qualify as a zoning dispute. Somewhere in that stack is the civics line about Congress policing itself. Somewhere else is the less poetic truth: self-policing is convenient until the pantry door starts rattling.

Congress hits a breaking point on ethics

Axios reports that a long drip of scandal started sounding like a burst pipe on Monday, April 13, when two House members announced plans to leave rather than risk expulsion votes. This is not just about individual misconduct. It is about an institution whose ethics machinery has moved slowly, and is now watching members reach for emergency exits.

• Rep. Eric Swalwell: The House Ethics Committee announced on April 13 it opened an investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct, while stressing the obvious but essential point: an investigation is not proof of a violation. Meanwhile, the political appetite for a floor vote grows because politics loves a clean vote even when the facts are still being assembled.
• Rep. Tony Gonzales: He said he would retire after calls to expel him following an ethics investigation tied to his admitted affair with a staff member. AP reports he said he would file his retirement when Congress returned. The rule at issue is plain: members may not have sexual relationships with employees under their supervision.
• Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick: Her matter has moved into a formal adjudicatory phase. A committee statement dated April 10 says an adjudicatory subcommittee found many counts in a Statement of Alleged Violations proven and set a public hearing for April 21 to determine what sanction, if any, should be recommended to the full House. AP has reported the ethics panel found her responsible for numerous violations, including campaign finance violations, tied to roughly $5 million in overpayment and how money flowed into a 2022 campaign through a network of businesses and family members.
• Rep. Cory Mills: He is under an established Ethics Committee investigative subcommittee authorized to examine a wide set of allegation categories, including disclosure issues, campaign finance, gifts and travel, and allegations of sexual misconduct or dating violence. Mills has denied wrongdoing, and again, investigations are not verdicts.

The tradeoff: catharsis vs. due process

The temptation is to skip the long ethics crawl and go straight to a dramatic floor vote. Expulsion is ripping off the bandage, except the bandage is attached to credibility and precedent. It also requires a two-thirds vote, designed to be rare and weighty, not casual and convenient.

But the opposite temptation is hiding behind process forever. Axios notes frustration with the pace. When a formal process looks broken, lawmakers start improvising. Improvisation in a constitutional chamber is how you end up with rules that feel like a midnight committee-room brawl.

My guardrails (Paine test, Orwell check, liberty ledger)

The Paine test: Who gains power? If expulsion can be rushed on allegations alone, power tilts toward leadership and whichever coalition can stage a two-thirds spectacle. If cases can linger indefinitely, power tilts toward incumbency under a permanent cloud.

The Orwell check: “Voluntarily leaving” and “retiring” can be tidy phrases. The public question is simpler: what rules matter, and how are they enforced, plainly and promptly?

The liberty ledger: The public pays when Congress cannot discipline itself without either stalling or stampeding. So: investigate, move, be fair, and make the process legible. Sunlight, deadlines, and due process. Which guardrail would you add first: faster ethics timelines, clearer expulsion standards, or an enforcement mechanism outside the club?