Mr. Jefferson's Predicament

He'll be leaving Congress sooner or later. For his district, sooner would be better.

THERE DOESN'T SEEM to be much question about whether Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.) will have to give up his seat. The only mystery appears to be the timing: to be precise, how long Mr. Jefferson tries to tough it out.

Mr. Jefferson's gloomy prospects can be explained, most recently, by the guilty plea entered in federal court in Alexandria last week by a Kentucky businessman, Vernon L. Jackson. According to the plea, Mr. Jackson met the congressman in 2000, and Mr. Jefferson began to help the businessman market his telecommunications firm, iGate Inc., to federal contractors and African countries. In 2001, Mr. Jefferson allegedly told Mr. Jackson that he wouldn't continue these promotional efforts without payments to a company belonging to Mr. Jefferson's family. The company allegedly received more than $400,000 from iGate over the next four years. When Mr. Jefferson helped iGate obtain a $45 million deal with a Nigerian firm, Mr. Jefferson allegedly upped the ante, demanding 35 percent of the iGate profit rather than the original 5 percent.

This episode is shaping up more like the corruption scheme involving former congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif.), now serving eight years, than like the scandal surrounding Jack Abramoff -- which last week brought another guilty plea, this time from the former chief of staff to Rep. Robert W. Ney (R-Ohio.) The Abramoff scandal uncovered an attitude of entitlement among members of Congress to the lavish lifestyle that Mr. Abramoff helped them to enjoy; it showed a rampant casualness about compliance with ethics rules and an even more disturbing willingness to perform legislative favors in return for, or as a result of, these goodies. But the Cunningham case -- and, if the allegations prove true, that involving Mr. Jefferson as well -- involves out-and-out corruption on a massive scale, not the relatively small-scale graft, however repulsive, of the Abramoff affair.

Mr. Jefferson says in a statement that he has never "accepted payment from anyone for the performance of any act of duty for which I have been elected." Perhaps he's getting ready to argue that his efforts on Mr. Jackson's behalf weren't part of his official duties and that the money funneled his way in return didn't constitute bribes. Whether or not that argument might work in court, it's not going to save Mr. Jefferson's congressional seat, nor should it. As Assistant Attorney General Alice S. Fisher put it, "Vernon Jackson got favorable treatment from a congressman because he paid for it."

Mr. Jefferson's New Orleans district was hit hard by Hurricane Katrina; it needs a representative who can devote his full attention to its woes rather than his own. Mr. Jefferson needs to seriously consider whether he can provide the representation his constituents deserve. Yes, Mr. Jefferson is legally innocent -- until and unless prosecutors prove otherwise. The presumption of innocence, essential in the criminal context, doesn't require a willing suspension of disbelief by Mr. Jefferson's constituents and colleagues.