Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) says Senate Democrats are engaging in the “culture of cancellation” by submitting a request to the Ethics Committee to investigate their role in the Capitol uprising on January 6. His response was to file his own complaint.
“In that sense, his unfounded claims are, unfortunately, typical of today’s leftist cancellation culture, a culture that tramples on the democratic traditions that the left and right once defended together,” Hawley wrote to the senators when filing his complaint.
Seven Democratic senators convened the Ethics Committee to determine whether Hawley and Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) incited violence by voting against the presidential election certification – and whether they coordinated with those who committed the violence.
Hawley, an ambitious loyal to Trump, drew criticism from Democrats and Republicans for his role as a leader in the effort to block certification of Biden Electoral College victories in Arizona and Pennsylvania. He was the first senator to announce that he would vote to reject the election results. On the day of the insurrection, Hawley raised his fist in a show of support for the pro-Trump crowd clustered outside the Capitol on his way to work, just hours before the situation turned deadly.
In a letter to the Senate Ethics Committee on Thursday, Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Tina Smith (D-MN), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) called for an investigation into the conduct of Hawley and Cruz for potential failure to “place allegiance to the highest moral principles” and involvement in “improper conduct reflecting on the Senate.”
Any complaint made by a senator is automatically considered by the Ethics Committee, which is composed of three members from each party. Senate Democrats are specifically asking the committee to launch an inquiry into how the denial of the Hawley and Cruz election inspired insurrectionists, whether there was any coordination between senators and those who invaded the Capitol, and whether their continued efforts to challenge certification after the attack increased the likelihood of future violence.
In particular, Democrats asked the committee to review Hawley and Cruz’s email records and fundraising history for possible coordination evidence and recommended that the committee take “severe disciplinary action, including expulsion or censorship,” if the evidence is discovered.
To be clear, this result is unlikely to occur. The committee could recommend censorship or expulsion, but it has been 30 and 159 years since they approved any of these sanctions, respectively.
It didn’t stop Hawley to quickly call a own investigation, claiming that the actions of Democratic senators were unethical due to possible coordination with the Democratic leadership or donors. He also used his counter-complaint to criticize Senate Democrats for theoretically abusing their positions using the Senate Ethics Committee as a vehicle to impose the “culture of cancellation” – from his position as a US senator who is actively exercising his right to demand investigations of political opponents.
“The idea that a senator who disagrees with another senator can therefore have that senator punished, sanctioned, censored or removed is totally antithetical to our democracy and the very idea of open and legitimate debate,” wrote Hawley. “This line of thinking is, however, sadly consistent with the mindset of the agreed crowd that you should cancel anyone who disagrees with your views.”
Hawley’s claim is part of a crusade he launched since the insurrection against the culture of cancellation, including an article he published in the New York Post Sunday against America’s “gagging”. His views have received wide media coverage, and he has a book that will be released in May by a conservative publisher after Simon & Schuster abandoned him.
Never forget your fisted greeting to the crowd that would soon sack the Capitol. And now he is taking the stance of a victim after American citizens use their freedom of speech to disassociate themselves from a man who tried to break America for Donald Trump and himself. https://t.co/88xdjEa12e
– David French (@DavidAFrench) January 25, 2021
What can ethical research really do?
The Senate Ethics Committee has the power to recommend censoring or expelling a member of the body – but it is a power rarely used.
Chaired by Democrat Chris Coons and Republican James Lankford – who had fun voting against electoral certification – the Ethics Committee has a reputation for inaction. Roll Call’s Chris Marquette reports that the agency rejected nearly all of the 251 complaints it received in 2019. The last disciplinary action it took was in 2018, when the committee issued a warning letter against Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) for accepting inappropriate gifts.
Commission rules require that a complaint be followed by a preliminary inquiry. After that, its members can vote to open charges and potentially issue a sanction. The two most serious actions possible are censorship – a formal sentence from a senator – or expulsion. The former requires a majority of votes in the chamber, and the latter requires the approval of an absolute two-thirds majority.
Expulsion is extremely rare. Only 15 members were expelled – 14 for supporting the Confederacy in the Civil War and one in 1797 for involvement in treason.
Censorship is also infrequent. Only nine senators were censored, with the most recent case occurring in 1990 for improper spending.
Sometimes lawmakers under investigation preemptively resign. For example, Senator Robert Packwood (R-OR) resigned in 1995 after the Ethics Committee found that Packwood used his power as a senator to sexually abuse women. The committee – including then President Mitch McConnell – unanimously recommended that the Senate expel Packwood.
But considering that he reiterated For his allegations of electoral fraud, a resignation from Hawley is unlikely, despite appeals from Democrats and most Missouri residents, according to a Data for Progress poll the week after the insurrection.
He was condemned by some Republicans, but the idea that all 50 Democrats and 17 Republicans would vote to expel him when no expulsion vote has taken place in nearly 80 years and has succeeded in more than 150 seems impossible. Instead, as Li Zhou of Vox explains, censorship would probably be the only disapproval that Hawley’s colleagues could give him:
Given the narrow majority of Democrats in both chambers, censorship is probably the most aggressive punishment that Republican lawmakers involved in electoral objections could face from Congress, although many Democrats do not see it as a tough enough response to their attempts to undermine democracy.
The most significant consequence that Hawley faces may come from corporations, not politicians or even voters – dozens of companies have promised to stop donating to him and other Republicans who voted against electoral certification.