House Democrats who lead the End Corruption Caucus have introduced a new bill designed to limit the scope of presidential clemency. The measure, known as the Abuse of the Pardon Prevention Act, targets instances where the pardon power may be used to benefit allies or donors of the sitting president. Representatives Mike Levin and Jason Crow, both Democrats, unveiled the proposal on Wednesday, arguing that current practices have created a system where financial influence can dictate legal outcomes.
In an interview with CBS News, Representative Levin described the current state of affairs as a pardon industrial complex. He argued that the highest bidders can effectively purchase clemency, a dynamic he believes contradicts the original intent of the Constitution. Levin stated that the power should be reserved for cases of justice and mercy, rather than serving as a tool for political or financial gain.
Although the bill faces significant hurdles in a White House likely to veto such measures, it provides an early indication of how Democrats plan to use their increased congressional strength to scrutinize the administration. Critics point out that a large portion of second term clemency actions have bypassed the standard Justice Department review process. Specifically, approximately 70 percent of these actions skipped the pardon office, a figure that rises to 92 percent when certain categories are included.
The White House has responded by defending its process, stating that those who spend money lobbying for pardons are wasting their funds. Officials emphasized that a robust review system is in place, involving White House counsel, the Justice Department, and the designated pardon czar, with the president serving as the final authority. White House Counsel Will Scharf maintained that the president performs these constitutional duties in an ethically sound manner, suggesting that opposition to the process is either based on a lack of information or bad faith.
The proposed legislation would direct the Justice Department inspector general to investigate pardons that raise potential conflicts of interest. Levin cited specific examples to illustrate these concerns, including the pardon of an individual who previously pleaded guilty to failing to maintain an effective anti money laundering program. He also referenced reports involving Alina Habba Mildon, a Justice Department adviser, who allegedly negotiated a deal with the family of a Venezuelan billionaire who received a pardon shortly after. Habba Mildon has denied playing a role in that specific pardon.
Additional provisions in the bill would clarify that both the president and vice president can be prosecuted if they trade pardons for something of value. It would also require recipients to disclose gifts made to projects associated with the president, such as his library or the White House ballroom. Furthermore, the bill seeks to ban self pardons, a power the president recently claimed to possess, though he has indicated he does not expect to use it.
Representative Crow, a Democrat from Colorado, emphasized the need to prevent a two tiered system of justice. He argued that the wealthy and well connected should not be treated differently from working people, and that no president should be able to abuse this constitutional authority without consequence.
Legal experts have raised concerns about the constitutionality of the bill. Samuel Morison, a former Justice Department pardon attorney adviser, noted that impeachment is the constitutional remedy for misuse of the pardon power. He argued that regulating the exercise of this power through legislation is difficult. Josh Blackman of South Texas College of Law Houston warned that the bill's broad conflict of interest standard could lead to criminal investigations of almost any controversial pardon. Brian Kalt of Michigan State University described the ban on self pardons as purely symbolic, noting that a statute cannot remove a power if the president has it, and changes nothing if he does not.
Despite these legal challenges, Levin maintains that there is a path to reform without undermining the Constitution. He suggested using the power of the purse to ensure independent investigations of every department. Levin also noted that his concerns extend beyond the current administration, expressing disagreement with certain pardons issued during the Biden and Clinton years as well.
The introduction of this bill signals a broader effort among members of Congress to strengthen checks and balances. Levin stated that any member of Congress who cares about the rule of law and the Constitution will want to see reforms to ensure the pardon power is used appropriately.
