Denise Lite | Congress Votes for Self-Serving Secrecy

I read with shock that our U.S. House of Representatives, in a decisive 357-65 vote, chose to keep taxpayer-funded sexual assault settlements involving members of Congress secret. This vote is despicable. It shields elected officials from public scrutiny, undermines the very advocacy many of them claim to champion, creates distrust and leaves taxpayers in the dark (once again) about how their money is being used.

At its core, the votes are about accountability. When a private company settles a sexual harassment or assault claim, the use of non-disclosure agreements is often criticized for hiding misconduct and allowing perpetrators to continue operating without consequence. Remember Harvey Weinstein? Lawmakers themselves have frequently condemned such practices, campaigning that secrecy perpetuates abuse. Yet when it comes to allegations within their own ranks, those same lawmakers have chosen secrecy. I’ll say it again – despicable.

For years, most representatives have embraced the language of believing and supporting all victims of sexual misconduct. The phrase “believe all victims” became a rallying cry during campaign season and during national conversations about harassment and assault. It was meant to signal that victims of abuse should be taken seriously and systems of power should not protect the accused. But by voting to keep settlement details hidden, Congress is prioritizing the reputations of its members (and the institution itself) over transparency and public accountability.

If lawmakers truly believe victims deserve justice, secrecy should not be their vote. Confidential settlements may protect a victim’s privacy when they request it, but blanket secrecy about the existence, cost and circumstances of taxpayer-funded settlements raises serious ethical questions. 

It sends the message that the institution’s primary concern is minimizing embarrassment and protecting their own, rather than confronting wrongdoing. There is an easy way to protect victims – redact THEIR names instead of the perpetrator’s names, a’la Epstein. To be clear, protecting victims’ privacy is an important consideration. Survivors should never be forced into public exposure against their will. Identifying the existence of settlements, the amounts paid, and most importantly the offices involved does not require revealing the identities of victims. Other sectors have found ways to balance these interests; Congress could do the same if it wanted to. The Boy Scouts of America settled a $2.46 BILLION sexual abuse claim in 2022 involving 82,000 survivors and the victims’ names were protected. If the Boy Scouts and their counsel can figure it out, so should Congress. 

The use of taxpayer money to resolve these claims without disclosure is troubling. We fund the salaries, offices and operations of Congress. When allegations of misconduct are settled using public funds, taxpayers become involuntary participants in the process. We become the insurers that pay. Yet under this framework, we are denied even basic information about how our money is spent. This is true with almost all government spending and needs to stop. Maybe if the offenders had to pay their settlements out of their pockets their behavior would change.

Transparency is a fundamental principle of democratic governance. Government agencies routinely disclose financial expenditures, settlements and legal liabilities precisely because public funds are involved. When Congress exempts itself from that level of scrutiny, it rightfully creates distrust. Secrecy can enable patterns of misconduct to continue unchecked. When assault settlements remain hidden, voters cannot evaluate whether their representatives have faced credible allegations and whether they should be re-elected to office. Staffers and interns — often young and early in their careers — may unknowingly enter hostile workplaces where misconduct has already occurred but was quietly settled out of sight.

It would be safe to assume transparency about prior complaints or disciplinary actions can serve as a deterrent. It signals that inappropriate behavior carries consequences, embarrassing or not. When those consequences are hidden, the deterrent vanishes.

There is also a cultural dimension to this vote. Over the past decade, public movements have pushed institutions — from corporations to universities — to confront sexual harassment more openly. The expectation is that those in power must model accountability and integrity. When Congress instead chooses secrecy, it reinforces the perception that powerful institutions and people operate by a different set of rules.

Ultimately, the 357-65 vote reflects a broader problem: an institution reluctant to police itself with the same rigor it demands from others, aka the old double standard. Members of Congress regularly speak about ethics, justice and standing with victims. Those words are hollow when those same lawmakers vote to conceal settlements funded by the public and tied to serious allegations of abuse. 

Democracy depends on trust. Citizens must believe their representatives are acting in the public interest and holding themselves to high ethical standards. By choosing secrecy over transparency, Congress risks eroding that trust even further.

Denise Lite is a Santa Clarita resident. “Right Here, Right Now” appears Saturdays and rotates among local Republicans.

Related To This Story

Our View | The Unacceptable Alternative: A Nuclear-Armed Iran

Larry Moore | Shouting at My Television

Rob Kerchner | Is This Any Surprise?

John Boston | Yes. There IS Life After the Cell Phone …

Elizabeth Wong Ahlers | Sacramento Keeps Parents in Dark

Dan Walters | A War of Words Over Carbon Rules

SoCal Gas working on timeline for pipeline repairs 

City to review rules on ‘granny flats’ 

Businesses: It’s a struggle for survival in Bouquet Canyon 

Career Visions to host Resource Information Night 

Two-vehicle crash results in two transports 

© Santa Clarita Valley Signal