ABSTRACT
The sharpest conflicts today revolve around the meaning of constituent service. Lawmakers charged with ethics violations frequently take the "constituent defense": What the average citizen may view as unethical or even illegal behavior is merely the act of lending a helping hand to a needy constituent. Debates over the issue occurred regularly during the Abscam and "Keating Five" scandals, when the accused lawmakers argued that they were rendering genuine constituent service and not engaging in illegal activity. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) argued that Abscam amounted to clear-cut bribery and not constituent service because monetary gain was clearly the goal of legislators who agreed to introduce private immigration bills for a fee. The major difference between the Abscam and Keating scandals was money: In Abscam, the accused legislators lined their own pockets in the interest of personal gain, whereas in the Keating case, senators intervened on behalf of constituents in exchange for campaign contributions or donations to their favorite charities.
