The Need for Background Checks on Candidates

For almost 250 years, our elected officials have run for office more or less on the “honor system.”  The only legal requirements to run include being a natural born citizen, being a resident of your state for a certain number of years and being a certain age (35 or older to run for POTUS, 25 or older for Congress). It’s just been assumed that candidates have a baseline of character, ethics, and decency.

Sadly, not everyone is Jimmy Stewart; we’ve seen more than the usual levels of corruption and criminal behavior coming out of D.C. lately.

The lack of vetting for our most powerful, influential public servants is pretty astonishing. Those applying to be a staffer in the White House undergo strict background checks to flag potential conflicts of interest, financial issues that might leave them open to blackmail, things like that. But the man/woman running for POTUS? Nada.

Let that sink in. The most powerful man/woman in the world gets to skip a process anyone applying for a gig at Panera would undergo.

Considering the amount of information that’s since come out about Donald Trump’s sketchy pre-White House dealings, you’d think someone might’ve done more than a cursory check. It would’ve saved our country a whole lot of Tums.

Then, take our Supreme Court justices. Yes, they undergo confirmation hearings on their record, but that just allows them to answer (or lie) about anodyne issues like “settled law.” The hearings for Justice Brett Kavanaugh became explosive after accusations of sexual harassment and assault publicly came to light (and don’t even get me started on Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill).  Yet what hardly got any attention were his mysterious, complicated debts which seemed to disappear right before his nomination. How might that influence his decisions? And who might benefit?

Judging from the behavior of some of our elected representatives, it’s clear there are skeletons rattling around in closets all over DC. Without going full-on “Spanish Inquisition,” we certainly deserve to know potential red flags like substance abuse, financial vulnerabilities, even a basic psychological workup.

This lack of vetting is allowing candidates to flood the system from sources unknown. Outside activist groups are fast-tracking people with little to no experience in governance or public service; all that matters is devotion to a particular ideology. Consider Lauren Boebert, representative from Colorado. She was a high-school dropout running a café’ in her hometown. Then, she suddenly raced to get her GED right before running for office. There are various tales of how Boebert was “recruited” to run and by whom, but she’s Exhibit A in the Unqualified Idealogue category and her district has suffered for it.

It’s clear that the rules for running for office were established back when there was a sense of honorable civic duty and a belief in citizen government. It’s almost quaint. But as the years have gone on, we’ve seen fewer people like Kennedy, Truman, or Carter and more who view public office as a personal ATM.

To some degree, the media uncovers problem areas but often, it’s too little too late. We need to treat applying for a job in the public sector at least as seriously as applying to be a manager at McDonald’s. Those dudes can only screw-up a drive-thru window; a sketchy public servant can do a whole lot more damage.

Cindy Grogan is a writer, lover of history and "Star Trek" (TOS), and hardcore politics junkie. There was that one time she campaigned for Gerald Ford (yikes), but ever since, she's been devoted to Democratic and progressive policies.