Beware of an election-year feeding frenzy

A recent story on "CBS Evening News" focused on whether itwas appropriate for a company that is under investigationto receive congressional earmarks. The story waspart of a series of reports that raised questions aboutthe practice of earmarking, and the sometimes limited transparencyand accountability associated with this long-standing practice.Let's be clear. Earmarking raises someimportant and legitimate questions. Howmuch transparency is there? How muchshould there be? It is also complicatedbecause not all earmarks are equal, andmany are perfectly legitimate expressions ofcongressional, versus presidential, priorities.But that debate is entirely differentthan the issue raised by the CBS story.Yet the report raises an even more fundamentalquestion: to what extent does thepresumption of innocence until provenguilty apply in federal contracting?This is a bedrock principle ofour system of laws, but it is also aprinciple that is increasingly beingshunted aside. And that shouldconcern all of us.In the case CBS cited, the companyinvolved has not been charged with anywrongdoing, let alone convicted. Simplyput, an investigation is not a finding; it isonly the first step in determining whetherthere is cause for charges to be filed or forsome additional legal action to determinethe guilt or innocence of the partiesinvolved. It is troubling that some wouldsuggest it is fair to punish a company or itsemployees who depend on the company fortheir livelihoods, even when the investigationis ongoing and there has been no evidenceof guilt. Too often, we have seen individualsand companies accused of wrongdoingunfairly punished or stigmatized,even when they are found innocent in theend.The CBS report is not an isolatedinstance. During the last few years, we havewitnessed more than a few congressionalhearings in which members of Congresshave, without a full and complete investigationand judicial process, clearly declaredtheir views on an individual's or company'sguilt or innocence and demanded thataction be taken immediately. We have advocatessuggesting that cases that were settledwith no finding of guilt or innocence beconsidered in determining whether a companymeets the test of corporate responsibilityrequired of all federal contractors. Wehave seen draft audits posted on congressionalWeb sites and treated as ifthey were conclusive.And we even have a proposed federalacquisition regulation that would requirecompanies to report possible violationsto the government even before they havea chance to determine if a violation actuallyoccurred. On the surface, this mightappear reasonable. But companies arealready required to disclose to the governmentthe violations they discover.Requiring them to do so before theyeven know the nature of theviolation could lead to a highlypremature feeding frenzy.We need to be careful of thistrend, especially in an electionyear when politicians ratchet upthe rhetoric. As taxpayers, we shoulddemand that our tax dollars be spentappropriately and that federal contracts bemanaged appropriately. But we also mustkeep faith with the principles of our systemof laws. And that includes the tenet of innocenceuntil proven guilty. We forget orignore that at our own peril.