In July, the New York Times uncovered two matters that appeared to implicate Rangel in ethics violations. He had used his official letterhead to raise money for a New York City college center in Harlem that would bear his name. (Yes, it is true: Congressman Charles Rangel is making an ethics complaint against Congressman Charles Rangel over raising money for the Charles Rangel Center using letters headed, "from the Office of Congressman Charles Rangel." )

You can see why House rules prohibit this. Using official letterhead to raise funds can be seen as coercion or a promise of quid pro quo, and the Center, while it may be a worthy project, is not something a U.S. official should be using his position to benefit. The fact that Rangel, or at least his ego, will also benefit from having it named after him raises the specter of him using his high office for personal gain…an ethical no-no from any perspective.

The second ethics problem is a bit more complicated: Rangel had been living in four rent-controlled apartments, using one of them as a campaign office, in Harlem's Lenox Terrace building. Most New York citizens are unable to have more than one rent-controlled apartment at a time, and the city's regulations prohibit the use of rent-controlled apartments for office space. Rangel's special treatment by the building has financial benefits, calling into question House gift rules. Rangel has given up the unit used as a campaign office.

The Congressman is only making the ethics complaint regarding his fundraising, but any investigation could and probably should check into the apartment matter as well. Of course, Rangel is making the complaint to get an official statement that he did nothing wrong, and with a Democrat-controlled committee investigating a powerful Democratic committee chair (he heads the Ways and Means Committee), he is likely to get what he seeks. Still, Rangel could have probably ignored both controversies and let them blow over. The House ethics committee has been a moribund, dysfunctional shell for years, the result of its evisceration by the GOP Congress under Tom DeLay, who finished the demolition job begun by the Democrats before him. The ethics complaint process had been used for partisan warfare and little else, leading to its implosion; despite many examples of questionable conduct by members of Congress, some involving outright lawbreaking, no ethics complaint had been filed in the House of Representatives since 2004.

Nobody can recall any other Congressman filing a complaint regarding his own conduct. But it makes sense: get the issue out in the open, and get a determination to end any argument. It also may revive the original purpose of the Committee, which is to improve the conduct of members, rather than to serve as a partisan weapon. A Democrat is actually filing a complaint against a Democrat, and no party punishment is going to be forthcoming (unless Chairman Rangel decides to undermine bills by Rep. Rangel in retribution for filing against loyal Democrat Rep. Charles…nah.). This is a good.

Self-reporting of ethics violations is an excellent habit to start. It suggests openness, and also implies that if there was an ethics violation, it was the inadvertent act of a public servant who still believes that ethics matter. Rangel's act alone is unlikely to revive the thoroughly broken House ethics enforcement process, but he deserves credit for his unorthodox move, which carries at least some risk of sanctions. And if the House Ethics Committee isn't exactly alive and well, it is at least twitching a little, thanks to Rep. Rangel. In the unethical swamp called the U.S. Congress, that's progress.

It really is.

Update: The same day this original version of the month-old story was completed, news came that Rangel was involved in yet another ethics controversy. It seems that resort property he had purchased in the Dominican Republic a decade ago came courtesy of an interest-free mortgage, something non-VIPs usually can't find and that U.S. Congressmen are supposed to distain, as they raise an appearance of impropriety. As with the other matters mentioned above, Rangel denies any wrongdoing. But he may come to regret that ethics complaint he filed on himself after all.