Watchdog Blog

Time to Put an End to the Paper Chase

Though presumably most senators (or their campaign staff) now use computers, they continue to file their campaign contribution forms on paper -- preventing us from learning quickly and easily how their campaign coffers are being filled and by whom.  The Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act (S. 482) would require Senate candidates to submit their campaign finance forms electronically, as House candidates already do. 

The bill could finally be up for a vote this week or next.  But, in spite of strong public support for the measure, Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) has taken up the mantle from (recently embarrassed) Sen. Ensign (R-Nev.) to try and kill it by attaching an irrelevant and unconstitutional amendment.  Unbelievably, the Ensign/Roberts amendment would force nonprofit organizations to expose their donors when they file ethics complaints against senators.  We can't imagine which senators would vote for that one, but I suppose it could be interesting to find out. 

Please call your senators today and let them know the Roberts amendment is unconscionable and it's time to pass S. 482.  If you have another minute, you also may want to call Sen. Majority Leader Reid's office and ask that he bring this bill to the floor for a vote:  202-224-3542.

from Angela Canterbury and Glenn Simpson

Deputy AG-Nominee is "a big believer in whistleblowers"

This just in from Steven Aftergood's "Secrey News" blog with the Federation of American Scientists:

David W. Ogden, who has been nominated to be the next Deputy Attorney General, last week expressed strong support for government whistleblowers who help to expose corruption or malfeasance.

“I am a big believer in whistleblowers,” he said at his February 5 confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, “and in the need to make sure that people feel comfortable coming forward to make complaints.”

“I think what we need is a process that encourages whistleblowing in this administration and any other administration going forward. The business of making sure that we’re doing the right thing is an ongoing business,” Mr. Ogden said in response to a question from Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse.

He said he would work with the Attorney General “to fashion an appropriate process that encourages whistleblowers to raise issues that need to be addressed.”

Mr. Ogden also indicated a willingness to consider public disclosure of certain legal opinions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Sen. Ron Wyden noted that “there are a lot of important rulings that go to the meaning of surveillance law, and I think that a lot of those kinds of judgments really could be redacted and declassified so that the country could be brought in in a more informed, a more complete way to these national-security debates.”

“I absolutely will commit to take a fresh look at this issue if I’m confirmed,” Mr. Ogden said.

FIS Court opinions that interpret surveillance law were one of several categories of “secret law” that were identified (pdf) in an April 30, 2008 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the subject.

Original post available here.

Post Editorial Misses Mark on Whistleblowers: Protections in Stimulus Bill Help Workers Hold Government Accountable

Today our whistleblower coalition responded to the Washington Post's outrageous editorial from February 2, 2009.

A Joint Statement from a Coalition of Public Interest Groups

Monday’s Washington Post editorial, “Wrong Way to Protect,” did a disservice to its readers and the taxpayers when it opposed provisions in the economic stimulus bill that are designed to empower federal whistleblowers.

The editorial argues that the reform should be pursued through ordinary legislative channels rather than included in the stimulus, stating “This is not the way it’s supposed to work.”  This is exactly how it is supposed to work: Federal whistleblower protection legislation has had the benefit of hearings, and has been vetted in both chambers for several years.  This is not an extraneous measure, as the editorial suggests.  In both chambers, the original stimulus bills included whistleblower protections for state and local employees.  Members of the House had the good sense to recognize that the massive stimulus package creates an urgent need for federal employees, who are the taxpayers’ first line of defense against waste and fraud, to be given the same protections afforded state and local employees.  

Deadline tonight: Tell your reps to vote for accountability in government

President Obama has asked Congress for a federal spending bill to get the economy moving again. Billions of tax dollars are already being spent in the bailout and billions more are needed to begin to dig us out of this financial crisis. But before we agree to this massive spending bill, we must know that someone will be watching the store. We must ensure that federal employees can blow the whistle waste, fraud or abuse - without fear of retaliation or reprisals!

We now have a chance to protect whistleblowers and make sure there is real accountability in the economic stimulus package! But we have to act quickly!

Two champions of accountability, Representative Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and Representative Todd Platts (R-PA), have offered an amendment to the stimulus bill that would restore and strengthen protections for federal workers who blow the whistle. This is the same bill that we have long supported and that passed the House with overwhelming support in 2007.

Congress is voting this evening on whether the economic stimulus should include protections for federal workers who blow the whistle on waste, fraud and abuse.

We need you to call your representative now and ask for support for federal government employees! You can find your member of the House here, or simply call the Capitol switchboard (202) 224-3121and ask for your representative.

Please tell your member of Congress to support federal employee whistleblower rights and vote yes on the Platts/Van Hollen Amendment today!

We’ve been fighting for these whistleblower protections for a long time. Passing the stimulus bill passes with these protections in place would be an outstanding victory for all of us who have fought for government accountability over the years. Please call your member of Congress today!

Let us know your thoughts on how your call went! Email us at action@citizen.org.

Obama’s Swift Actions Will Hold Government Accountable

Today, Public Citizen president Joan Claybrook lauded President Obama for swift actions to hold the government accountable. The statement follows:

President Obama campaigned with the promise of change, a commitment to government openness and a pledge to uphold high ethical standards. On his first full day in office, the new president showed a willingness to turn rhetoric into action.

After eight years of government in the shadows and preferential treatment of corporate lobbyists under his predecessor, President Obama’s directives and executive orders on presidential records, the Freedom of Information Act, transparency and open government, and ethics are not only important in restoring public access to critical information and holding government accountable, but they serve to reaffirm the hope our nation has in his presidency. By issuing strict rules on the future lobbying activities of his administration, President Obama slowed the revolving door that has allowed so many high-ranking government officials to enrich themselves at the public’s expense. And by emphasizing the openness of government records, the orders help to ensure that abuses of power will not go unnoticed and uncorrected.

McCain-Feingold Reality Clashes With WSJ Narrative

The Wall Street Journal's editorial board on Wednesday leveled an oft-repeated but misleading attack on the law commonly known as McCain-Feingold. The Journal, an opponent of campaign finance reform, took a measure of satisfaction in arguing that John McCain's fundraising deficit is due to the very legislation he sponsored: 

The ultimate irony – perversity, if you're a Republican – is that the great champion for today's system is none other than John McCain. Having pushed for the government to limit money in politics, he is being outspent – and, should the polls hold, beaten – thanks in part to the laws he worked tirelessly to put on the books.

What the Journal and other drive-by critics of campaign finance reform miss is that McCain-Feingold was not really intended to limit money in politics and certainly was not intended to limit campaign contributions to candidates. The law actually doubled the maximum amount an individual could contribute to candidates, from $1,000 to $2,000 per election (a figure since adjusted for inflation to $2,300). 

What McCain-Feingold did was stop the political parties from accepting corporate or union contributions, which candidates were already prohibited from doing. An honest attack on McCain-Feingold would have to start with a claim that the country was better off with the political parties trading favors in exchange for corporate and union contributions of hundreds of thousands – and sometimes millions – of dollars (in 2002, for example, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac lavished $4.2 million in soft money on the two major parties). 

If the Journal wants to make that argument, we would welcome the debate.

Voters Still in Line Behind Wall Street

Back in early July, we sent a request with a few of our partners in reform to every candidate running for Congress this fall urging them to sign the Voters First Pledge, a simple statement of support for legislation for a new system of pubic funding for congressional campaigns.  So far, nearly 220 candidates have made the pledge - but there are still many others who have yet to tell us where they stand.

So, we've sent yet another letter to candidates who haven't responded and have asked our members and activists to make sure the candidates in their districts know this is an issue they shouldn't ignore.  It's frankly hard to understand why a candidate wouldn't want to commit to change business as usual in Washington today.  The urgent need for reform is summed up neatly in the letter:

As the nation faces its worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, now is the time for bold reforms to both the financial and political systems. Wall Street and powerful financial interests should not be funding campaigns for Congress if we want a political system that truly works for the American people. Public confidence in Congress is at an all-time low, and voters assume that both incumbents and challengers are under the undue influence of special interests.

Seeking big donations does not end with the campaign season - from their first day in office members of Congress must continue to dial for dollars.  The result?  Policies that favor Wall Street and not Main Street.  Public funding of campaigns would allow our elected officials to get off the fundraising treadmill and truly represent the interests of ordinary citizens.

Lobbyists Trying to Hide in Plain Sight at the DNC

by Eric Encarnacion

Over the last month, we've talked about the pervasive corporate presence at the national conventions and the ways that big-money special interests will try to influence politicians through their stomachs and their general taste for the good life. Now, with the Democratic National Convention in Denver this week, the evidence is in: Corporations and their lobbyists are throwing lavish parties for lawmakers. They're hard to miss, as the mainstream media has started covering them.

Crashing the Convention Parties

The Democratic Party Convention is now in full swing. As you might imagine, it's quite the jet-set party scene, with well-heeled lobbyists and corporate CEOs schmoozing with our members of Congress and other luminaries.

Like you, we're sick of special interests coming before voters - just look at the mess we're in thanks to this pay-to-play system. Big Oil, Big Pharma and other corporate titans have had their way with our government for too long.

That's why we're crashing their parties!

Lobbyists gone wild!

By Joe Newman, originally posted on Citizen Vox.

How much would you need to throw a great party for several thousand friends? Imagine what you could do with $1 miilion. The possibilities boggle the mind.

I’m thinking little meatballs served with 14-carat gold toothpicks. Now, imagine if you had $112 million at your disposal. That’s how much money corporate sponsors and lobbyists are contributing to this year’s Democratic and Republican conventions, events that have become less about the American political process and more about seeing who can throw the most lavish soirees.

A report released today by Public Citizen shows how corporations and lobbyists are exploiting loopholes in election law and congressional ethics rules to turn the conventions into a place where they can wine and dine lawmakers and lobby them away from Capitol Hill.

Some of these parties appear to cross the line and put lawmakers who attend in violation of their ethics rules, the report says. You can learn more and read the Public Citizen report at www.SayNoToLobbyists.org.

House Report Re-Confirms Abramoff-Bush Connection

For the second time, an investigation by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, led by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), confirmed extensive communications between disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who is now serving a prison sentence, the White House and President George Bush. A September 2006 report by the same committee identified 485 contacts between Abramoff and the Bush Administration over the brief career of the scandal-tainted lobbyist; the new report identifies 70 additional contacts.

Despite vociferous denials by White House officials of knowing Jack Abramoff, including denials by President Bush, even the earliest of records demonstrated that Abramoff did indeed visit White House officials. Convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff made at least two visits to the White House during the Bush administration, according to Secret Service logs released in 2006 under a court order. The logs did  not say with whom Abramoff met or what they discussed and "appear to be incomplete," said Tom Fitton, president of the watchdog group Judicial Watch, which requested the records.

The Department of Justice investigation of Abramoff, originally led by DOJ Public Integrity Section chief Noel Hillman, slowly but surely climbed the ladder from an investigation of Abramoff’s wire fraud to Sun Cruz investors in Florida to corruption in Washington, D.C. Most observers thought Hillman would stop the investigation with a conviction against Abramoff. But in January 2006, Washington was stunned by news that Hillman worked out a plea bargain with Abramoff, easing his sentence in exchange for information about bribery and corruption with lawmakers.

As the investigation by the Department of Justice showed signs of uncovering more of the Abramoff-Bush connection, Bush appointed Hillman to a judgeship in federal district court in Baltimore on January 27, 2006.

Campaign Finance Reformers Open the Floodgates

By David Arkush and Craig Holman. Originally published in Roll Call ($).

The presumptive presidential nominees, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.), are exploiting a major loophole in the campaign finance law. Both Senators are setting up joint fundraising committees that allow the wealthy to donate $70,000 or more on behalf of their campaigns.

You might wonder how this squares with the $2,300 limit on contributions from individuals - contribution limits that the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 sought to protect by banning large soft-money contributions.

Heres how McCain Victory 2008, one of the candidates new joint fundraising committees, is accepting $70,100 from donors: The first $2,300 is treated as a contribution to the McCain campaign. Then, $2,300 goes to McCains compliance fund. The next $28,500 is earmarked for the Republican National Committee. And the remainder - up to $37,000 - is split between the Colorado, Minnesota, New Mexico and Wisconsin Republican parties.

McCain set up at least six joint fundraising committees. Obama announced on April 25 that he, too, will set up a joint fundraising committee with the Democratic National Committee.

Another Abramoff-related Conviction

The conviction of John Albaugh, staffer for "Representative #4" (Rep. Istook), for corruption in accepting gifts from Abramoff (meals, hotel suites, travel, sports tickets) represents the 14th conviction related to the Abramoff probe.

Following one fundraising dinner held at no charge at Abramoff's restarurant (Signatures), Istook called Abramoff at Albaugh's suggestion asking Abramoff "which particular projects [Abramoff's] clients want in the transportation bill," according to court documents ($).

And these lawmakers insist they cannot be bought for a dinner. [This one was an undisclosed fundraising dinner to boot.]

Abramoff continues to cooperate with authorities.

Doolittle Quits

My favorite role model of an unethical Congressman, Rep. John Doolittle (R-Cal.) - who is under close investigation by the FBI for corruption (even had his house raided) - has decided not to seek another term of office and will retire in 2008. We hear he will make his announcement in about an hour.

Doolittle joins the ranks of a wave of members of Congress who have retired last year or will retire this year, following corruption scandals and the lobbying and ethics reform drive. There is still the possibility of conviction and another stint in a different public house awaiting Doolittle.

Laura MacCleery on WVOX

Last week, Laura MacCleery, director of Public Citizen's Congress Watch division, spoke to New Yorkers about the recently passed Lobbying and Ethics bill, the role of lobbyists in campaign fundraising, Fair Elections, and presidential bundlers.

Listen to her interview on WVOX.

Romney Should Come Clean About Tainted Bundler

The indictment last week of Alan Fabian continued a rich tradition of major presidential fundraisers – or bundlers – running aground with the law.

If convicted, Fabian will follow in the footsteps of Jack Abramoff, Ken Lay and Thomas Noe, to name a few presidential bundlers who were subsequently convicted of felonies. And Fabian would enjoy a rare distinction among convicted bundlers: He would manage to taint not one, but two presidential candidates, Bush in 2004 and Mitt Romney in the current cycle.

A federal grand jury in Maryland indicted Fabian on nine mail fraud counts, nine money laundering counts, one obstruction of justice count, two bankruptcy fraud counts, and two perjury counts in a scheme that allegedly defrauded several companies and financial institutions of $32 million. Read about it in the Boston Herald and the Boston Globe

For its part, the Romney campaign is providing lessons in how to do the absolute least to make amends when the law comes knocking on a bundler’s door. In the wake of the indictment, the campaign announced that it was returning Fabian’s $2,300 contribution, but not the untold thousands (or hundreds of thousands) that Fabian brought in from other sources. The campaign wouldn’t even say if it would return the money contributed by Fabian’s wife.

“The money he helped raise was donated by people who have not been accused of any wrongdoing, and so there is no reason for returning it,” a campaign spokesman said.

In point of fact, there is plenty of reason to be suspicious of money raised by Fabian if the allegations against him prove true. Corrupt bundlers sometimes hit their fundraising targets by furnishing money to others on the condition that they contribute it to candidates. This shortcut was one of the things that landed Bush bundler Thomas Noe in the slammer. (Stealing from the Ohio’s Bureau of Workers' Compensation fund was the other.)

But there is a more fundamental question that remains unanswered: Who did give to Romney at Fabian’s behest?

The modern era of bundling took root in George W. Bush’s first campaign when the campaign figured out how to track the money arranged by bundlers without having to comply with disclosure requirements that would kick in if the bundler actually handled the checks. Bundlers had the contributors they solicited send checks directly to the campaign with their bundler’s number written on the check. The Bush campaign agreed to provide some information about who its bundlers were but not who the bundlers solicited contributions from.

If Romney really wanted to demonstrate that his Fabian-arranged donors were clean, the least he could do is say who they are.

Congress Delivers on Lobbying and Ethics Reform!

Finally – real ethics reform passed in Congress!  Yesterday the Senate approved S. 1 – the “Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007” – with a veto-proof majority of 83 to 14. On Tuesday, the House also passed the bill with flying colors by 411 to 8.

This terrific legislation will give the public important new information about the cozy relationships between industry lobbyists and members of Congress, and limit the outrageous gifts and travel junkets that laid the groundwork for the culture of corruption on Capitol Hill.   

Today marks the final chapter of a long struggle. We first kicked off the drive to fix Capitol Hill over three years ago. Back then, our “wish list” of reforms was largely ignored by members of Congress and the media – even laughed at as a political impossibility. Then Jack Abramoff’s world – and that of many prominent members of Congress – started to unravel. 

As the investigations into kickbacks and bribes became indictments, our call for reform – and the increased public disgust with Washington – became more and more difficult to ignore. When Abramoff worked out a plea deal in January 2006 to name those whom he bribed to the FBI, you’d have thought the gig was up. But the leadership of the 109th Congress burrowed into the warm sand like ostriches and ignored the need for reform.  In return for their indifference, the voters changed up the Congress in 2006, citing corruption as a top concern.

But institutional change is hard even for a Congress elected on a promise to “end the culture of corruption.” As the bill moved forward, the “K Street” crowd lobbied hard, warning members not to bite the hands that keep lawmakers fat and happy. Public Citizen’s activists did not back down, sending thousands of faxes, emails and making hundreds of call to the Hill to tell Congress it must see this through. 

House Overwhelmingly Approves Ethics Bill - Next: The Senate

It always amazes me what a roll-call vote can do. Behind the scenes, in back-room negotiations, many members of Congress have been laboring away trying to water down – if not kill – lobbying and ethics reform legislation.

Yet when the same bill was submitted to a roll-call vote, where members go on record voting “yea” or “nay,” the bill on ethics sailed through. The House passed a landmark lobbying and ethics bill today by a vote of 411-to-8. Looking at the floor vote, most of the public would not know that many members of Congress had wished this bill would die a quiet death.

About two weeks ago, the bill had one foot in the grave.

Libby Lied, but Justice Served

Yesterday, some justice was served when I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was sentenced to two and a half years in prison and a fine of $250,000 for lying and otherwise obstructing the investigation into the leak of CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity. The former chief of staff to Vice President Cheney, Libby was one of the highest-ranking officials in the government. U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton noted that "individuals have to understand that when you transgress the law there are consequences," stressing the seriousness of Libby's crimes as a reason for the stiff sentence, according to NPR.

Libby will find out next week when he has to report to prison. On June 14, the judge will decide whether Libby can remain free while appealing the verdict. In the meanwhile, I imagine the White House will be diverting attention from the possible pardon they will give Libby.

Forgive me, but a presidential pardon would be inexcusable.

Claybrook Conversation on Moyer's Blog

Joan Claybrook's post on the Bill Moyers Journal Blog is generating a lively conversation about the need for lobbying and ethics reform in Congress.  Not surprisingly, there are many reflections on the impact of corporate interests, and public funding of elections came up quickly as the ultimate antidote. 

You can check it out and join in, or pick up the thread here. 

If you haven't yet had a chance to see the "Cleaning House" segment of the Bill Moyers Journal that we announced here on the Watchdog Blog, you can watch it below:

Joan Claybrook and Bill Moyers on What’s at Stake

Tune in tonight when award-winning journalist Bill Moyers sits down with Public Citizen President Joan Claybrook for an in-depth examination of what makes the lobbying and ethics reform bill the single most important piece of legislation Congress can enact. Bill Moyers Journal airs on PBS. Check your local listings for the exact time of the broadcast or watch online afterwards and learn what is at stake.

Here’s a preview of the Moyers show.  Here’s what you can do.

What opposition?

This past week the House finally passed the long-awaited lobbying reform bill.  After months of wrangling, significant reforms in the relationship between lobbyists and Congress passed overwhelmingly. 

Check out Craig Holman's excellent piece in The Politico.  Here's what Craig has to say about those who fought the reforms:

The curmudgeons were those in the middle layer of the caucus – folks who have been around Capitol Hill for 10 or 20 years. Members such as Reps. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii), Allen Boyd (D-Fla.) and Alcee L. Hastings (D-Fla.) railed against the reforms. These lawmakers have close fundraising relationships with the lobbying corps and perhaps also are eyeing million-dollar lobbying jobs in the near future. Hastings, now serving his eighth term, scoffed at the reformers, who “want Congress to be in sackcloth and ashes.”

The old bulls’ opposition was so vocal that Democratic leaders continued to water down the bill to buy their votes. In the most tragic cut of all, a back-room deal was worked out to strip the reform bill of its revolving door restrictions in exchange for a vote to send the measure to the floor. But Abercrombie et al. still continued to decry other provisions, such as the bundling disclosure, threatening to kill the measure on the floor.

Though these guys still voted against the reform bill, they were about the only ones. The measure passed overwhelmingly by a vote of 396-22.

This is a hard-won victory that we share with our allies in the House, our coalition partners, the voices of reason in the media and blogosphere, and most of all, with our very committed activists. 

Now let's make sure the members of the conference committee don't shred these reforms when joining the Senate and House versions of the bills.

The Dizzying Spin of the Revolving Door

On Tuesday, a former congressional staffer on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Mark Zachares, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the public by accepting gifts and promises of a high-paying lobbying job on K Street in exchange for official favors for disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his clients.

Zachares's conviction stems from one of the most powerful tools for buying influence on Capitol Hill: the revolving door, in which lucrative lobbying jobs in the private sector are offered to public officials, oftentimes to win legislative favors for clients.

Zachares joins a growing list of congressional and executive branch officials who have been convicted for revolving door corruption such as Tony Rudy and Neil Volz, former senior staffers to retired Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas) and imprisoned Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio), respectively and an even larger list of former officials shrouded in scandal such as former Rep. Bill Tauzin (R.-Louis.) for immediately spinning through the revolving door after leaving public service.

Despite the fact that there is a one-year cooling-off period in which former officials are not supposed to make lobbying contacts with the former colleagues, the current revolving door restriction is an abysmal failure. Of members of Congress who left office between 1998 and 2004, 43 percent went on to become lobbyists 42 percent of ex-House members and 50 percent of ex-Senators. By July 2005, only six months after the end of the 108th Congress, 18 departed members from that Congress had announced accepting jobs with lobbying firms. Four actually registered as federal lobbyists within their first year of leaving Congress. After the last Administration, about a quarter of senior cabinet officials moved into private employment as lobbyists.

The heart and soul of the problem is that former officials are currently prohibited only from making lobbying contacts picking up the telephone and calling their former colleagues during the cooling off period. All other paid lobbying activity during this period-- the planning, strategizing and supervising lobbying campaigns-- is unrestricted immediately after leaving public office.

Never before have we seen the revolving door spin so wildly out of control. It permeates the culture on Capitol Hill, vastly increasing the opportunities for corruption, and sharply diminishing the publics confidence in the federal government.

Resonable reforms must be put into place. Otherwise the revolving door, which raises so much public suspicion about conflicts of interest, will remain in spin mode.

Deliver on the Promise to Clean Up Washington

Today, Public Citizen submitted testimony [pdf] to the House Special Task Force on Ethics Enforcement. The Task Force is conducting hearings on whether the current congressional ethics enforcement system is broken – YES, IT IS – and, if so, how to fix it.

The Special Task Force, chaired by Rep. Mike Capuano (D-Mass.), is the creation of Speaker Nancy Pelosi. If the Task Force delivers on its promise, its recommendations will serve as the basis for separate reform legislation to restructure the congressional ethics enforcement process.

On Day One of the 110th Congress, Speaker Pelosi introduced, and the House nearly unanimously approved, a sweeping set of ethics rules changes that has been widely praised inside and outside the beltway. A legislative package with additional lobbying and ethics reforms will soon follow.

But one essential reform to prove to the public that Congress is serious about cleaning up Washington is still up in the air:  Will Congress establish an effective, independent enforcement agency to monitor compliance to the new laws?

Perhaps the single most important reason that scandal after scandal has rocked Congress is that no single agency is responsible for, nor has the resources to ensure, compliance to the lobbying and ethics rules. Lobbyists file their financial reports with the Clerk of the House, who does not have the authority or the means to guarantee that these reports are filed accurately. Congressional ethics are the responsibility of the House ethics committee, which does not have the staff to monitor and advise Congress on compliance to the rules.

If Congress is serious about lobbying and ethics reforms, these duties must be the responsibility of one agency, professionally staffed and reasonably independent from partisan politics.

Public Citizen in the strongest terms possible urges the Task Force to fulfill its promise and deliver a proposal to fundamentally restructure the ethics process into a monitoring and enforcement system that actually works.

FBI Raids Home of Rep. Doolittle

It has been reported recently that the FBI raided the Virginia home of Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.) last Friday.

Rep. John Doolittle has been under investigation by the Justice Department for his ties to former super-lobbyist, Jack Abramoff and other allegations of unethical behavior.

Here's what we know:

• For his 2004 campaign, he refused to return an estimated $50,000 in campaign contributions he received from Abramoff clients.
• He steered $37 million in defense appropriations to a company headed by Brent Wilkes, the man who Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham has pleaded guilty to accepting bribes from.
• He paid his wife a 15 percent commission from campaign funds.  Although he has asserted that this is “standard practice” in the industry, the 27,000 member Association of Fundraising Professionals, sent him a letter flatly stating it violates the ethics standards of the industry.
• He short-circuited an FDIC investigation into the primary owner of a failed S&L that cost taxpayers billions.

Learn more about Doolittle in our Hall of Shame.

UPDATE: According to the AP, despite stepping down temporarily from his seat on the House Appropriations Committee, Rep. Doolittle today proclaimed his innocence and that he will fight any charges, not resign, and plans on seeking re-election.

Funny Money Hits the Hill

If members of Congress think that the fight to clean up Washington ended on Nov. 7, they are sorely mistaken.

Yet there are still plenty of politicians here who DO NOT want to change a thing.  Others who ran on cleaning up Washington still have not delivered.  It's easy for politicians to get a little too comfortable with the way things work in DC…

The truth is you gotta keep on bugging them.

Public Citizen and other reform groups have been prodding Congress to put their lobbying and ethics reform bill back on the front burner.   We don’t want the political momentum for bold reform to lose steam and are asking folks to pull out all the stops to keep it going until it gets passed.

That is why we are delivering "funny money" lobbyist cash to reps. on behalf of their constituents.  Our activists are demanding to know who how much bundled campaign contributions are coming from lobbyists and what for-profit grassroots lobbying firms are spending big bucks to influence Congress on controversial legislation.

We figured -- money talks in Washington.  Take a second to send your own and say it's time for real change, and not chump change.

The New Dog on the Blog

Welcome to our new and improved Watchdog Blog.

This dog covers all Congress Watch issues and campaigns, not just money and politics.  We aren’t going to let up on exposing political corruption, but now we will cover all of the juicy stuff in our bailiwick – critical issues like civil justice, including access to courts and consumer advocacy.  If government or corporate accountability is in question, or when other vital reforms are needed, you will read about it here.

In addition to the freshly groomed appearance of the Watchdog, it also now has syndication by both RSS feed and email.  You can subscribe to receive all Watchdog Blog posts, or if you prefer, you can choose to receive only posts on Money & Politics or Civil Justice issues.

It’s also MUCH easier to participate.  If you can’t remember your comment login and password, don’t worry.  Now all you need to join the discussion is a name, an email, and an opinion.

Just hit comments and let’s begin the conversation.   

Easter Recess... And Rotten Eggs

The Senate is out for Easter recess now.  Which means the White House might be planning to hide some rotten eggs — by giving out recess appointments that would give a lot of power to some unacceptable special interests.

Rotten Egg #1: Susan Dudley

One of them might be Susan Dudley.  You might remember Dudley: she spent her career arguing that if we truly valued protections like air bags or privacy rights, then corporations would already be giving them to us… so there’s no need for any regulation to protect us.

Bush nominated her to an office where she would have power to weaken and eliminate all those pesky regulations, like air bags and privacy rights, which Dudley thinks we don’t really need.

Your calls and letters to the Senate last year were successful:  the Susan Dudley nomination wasn’t even allowed to leave the committee.  And the Republican Senator who chaired that committee last year actually told the press that the president would be within his rights to send the nomination back in 2007… but it would just be a waste of time.

So did Bush learn his lesson?  Nope.  Bush is at it again in 2007 – nominating, once again, Susan Dudley to become the regulatory czar.  But even that wasn’t enough:  while the Senate is looking again at her nomination, Bush decided to put her in power through the backdoor, by making her a “senior advisor,” so that she can go ahead and do the job that the Senate decided last year she shouldn’t be allowed to do.

Remind the Senate that Dudley is unfit to have such enormous power to ruin your health and safety, and tell the White House not to use the Easter recess to give her a recess appointment.

Rotten Egg #2:  Michael Baroody

President Bush would be hard-pressed to find a more inappropriate nominee to head the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CSPC), the government agency charged with protecting consumers from dangerous products, than Michael Baroody.  Why?  Because Baroody has spent the past decade lobbying to undermine consumers’ rights.

As the head of advocacy efforts for the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), Baroody has spearheaded campaigns at both the federal and state levels to limit the ability of regulatory agencies like CPSC to protect us, and to bar consumers who have been injured from being able to go to court and demand justice.

NAM advocacy efforts include a wide-ranging strategy to influence elections. In conjunction with the Business Industry Political Action Committee (BIPAC) and other groups, NAM helps run the “Prosperity Project,” an effort to elect pro-business candidates.  2004 was a busy time for NAM and its “Prosperity Project” – which NAM claimed was a neutral voter education effort, although University of Minnesota political scientist Lawrence Jacobs thought otherwise:  “This is not nonpartisan, evenhanded campaign material,” he said, about literature distributed by Prosperity Project companies and associations.  “It’s material that’s subtly but clearly promoting one candidate at the expense of another.” While Baroody told the National Review that NAM did not endorse candidates, Baroody slammed 2004 Democratic nominees John Kerry and John Edwards as being “virtually in a league by themselves,” in terms of their credibility gap with manufacturers.

The White House has likely calculated that Baroody won’t pass the smell test in the Senate.  Tell the White House that a recess appointment of Baroody stinks.

The Solution to the Money Problem Introduced

Today Public Citizen joined with congressional leaders from both sides of the aisle and a broad coalition of civic groups to uproot the problem of money in politics. Senators Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) and Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) announced the introduction of the Fair Elections Now Act [listen] to establish public funds for senatorial elections.  This bold and important bill would transform federal elections for the U.S. Senate from a business enterprise into a contest of ideas focused on our nation's challenges. 

It’s plain that the cost of campaigns for Senate (and all other offices) is out-of-sight.  Over the last past three election cycles, the average cost of the 10 most expensive Senate races has more than doubled, from $16.9 million in 2002 to $34.9 million in 2006.  This escalation in costs continues today, and candidates will have to spend more and more time trying to raise enough money to compete.  Enough is enough.  We cannot allow our government to keep spiraling out of the hands of ordinary Americans.

The Fair Elections Now Act would create a voluntary system through which participating candidates - those who establish their credibility by collecting enough qualifying contributions and who then pledge not to accept private contributions - would receive public funds for the primary and general elections.  Participants would also be eligible for free media vouchers and discounted commercial advertising rates.  The bill is patterned on successful efforts to reduce the impact of money on the election process in Arizona, Maine, and elsewhere.

Public funding of congressional elections is a huge break for the American taxpayer. It would cost just a fraction of one percent of the annual federal budget. But it would produce lawmakers who would not feel obligated to repay donors with costly tax loopholes, special earmarks and other boondoggles that drain billions of taxpayer dollars from the Treasury.

Last year, we fought to clean up the corruption in Washington. The public took notice, and then took action, culminating on November 7, when voters chose to put an end to the culture of corruption.  The new Congress is responding to the call for change by debating a variety of worthwhile ethics and lobbying reforms. 

Some of these first-line improvements are expected to pass in the coming weeks - but none of these will lower our gas prices, the cost of prescription drugs or student loans  - all inflated by tax-breaks and special corporate giveaways served up by lobbyists and well-heeled contributors. 

The only lasting antidote to the corrupting influence that comes with privately funded elections is to publicly fund them with a system of fair and clean elections.  Thanks to Senators Durbin and Specter, we are on our way to a brighter future.

The Political Scandals Just Keep On Coming

Even after the November elections when voters rebuked the GOP because of its scandal-ridden image and turned control of Congress over to the Democrats, the political scandals just keep on coming.

I attended the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings this morning on eight federal prosecutors who were fired en masse following the 2006 elections in December by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the Bush Administration.  The Administration initially gave no reason for the firings.  The story of political intrigue and corruption that my Public Citizen colleague Linda Andros wrote about on TomPaine.com last week continues to unfold.

The hearing noted that all but one received exemplary performance reviews. The common thread among many of these firings appears to be political repercussions for prosecuting Republicans for corruption, such as the infamous Duke Cunningham, or not prosecuting Democrats fast enough before the elections. Never mind that all but two of the prosecutors are Republicans; the other two are Independents.

Lobbying Reform in the House's Hands

Today the House picks back up with its work to end the “culture of corruption” in Washington.  The House Judiciary’s subcommittee on the constitution, civil rights and civil liberties is discussing the bill of comprehensive reforms passed by the Senate, S.1, in a hearing today.  This is an excellent place to begin. But will the panel and House leadership make their bill match their promises to be the most "ethical Congress" in history? 

Public Citizen submitted a letter today to the subcommittee and the other members of Congress, urging them to take a tough stand in some key areas.  First, they need to shine sunlight on the secret fundraising done by lobbyists.  As noted in a piece by Congress Watch Director Laura MacCleery posted on Commondreams.org, the public has a right to know who is involved in the practice of “bundling” gobs of campaign cash at lavish fundraisers or through lobbyist networks.  These bundled contributions add up to influence and access for lobbyist bundlers and their clients.

The House also must slow the revolving door between K Street and Capitol Hill.  Lobbying restrictions are supposed to prevent government employees from stepping through the revolving door between the Capitol and “K Street” and selling out the public by exploiting the contacts they made while in office.  Developments in recent years have shown these laws need MUCH improvement. Check out our post on this blog on Zell Miller’s turn through the revolving door.

The public also needs to know who is funding “Astroturf” lobbying. Business journalist Gary Weiss lays it all out in “Astroturfing Congress” in Forbes.

Perhaps the biggest opportunity for the new House to put their stamp on real reform is to create an independent monitoring and enforcement entity.  The House can best the Senate by making sure all of these new laws and rules actually get enforced.

Let’s hope the members of the people’s House fulfill their promise. This is their moment to make Congress more accountable and inspire confidence in a government for and by the people.

'Dusty' Ethics

Some of you may have heard that Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, former CIA Administrator, was indicted on February 13 for allegedly accepting bribes of meals and lavish vacations in exchange for doling out government contracts to California businessman and Republican campaign contributor Brent Wilkes.

In my testimony [pdf] before the House Government Reform Committee, also on February 13, I cited one of the major problems contributing to ethics abuses in the executive branch is the lack of ethics oversight. Responsibility for monitoring and enforcing ethics rules are left to some 6,000 individual ethics officers scattered among all the various executive agencies. Many of these ethics officers are poorly trained, if trained at all.

What is less known is that "Dusty" was one of those ethics officers.

Zell Miller Gets Stuck in the Revolving Door

Current revolving door rules prohibit ex-Congressmen from lobbying their old colleagues for one year after they leave office. In September 2005, ex-Sen. Zell Miller (D-Ga.) was still within his one year probation period when became a registered lobbyist for the firm of McKenna, Long and Aldridge.  According to disclosure forms, the firm received $60,000 from Lockheed Aeronautical Systems for him and others to lobby the House, Senate and Department of Defense.

If he, in fact, lobbied any Congressmen, he broke the law.  But there is no way of knowing by looking at the disclosure forms, because they don’t say exactly what he did.

Lobbying restrictions are supposed to prevent government employees from stepping through the revolving door between the Capitol and “K Street” and selling out the public by exploiting the contacts they made while in office.  Developments in recent years have shown they need MUCH improvement.

For example, by July 2005, 18 recently departed members of Congress had already accepted jobs at lobbying firms only six months into retirement. As noted by Public Citizen’s advocate Craig Holman in Roll Call today, our research shows that from 1998 through 2004, 43 percent of all retiring Members of Congress (those retiring for reasons other than death or conviction) spun through the revolving door to become lobbyists. Anecdotal evidence indicates very high salaries, sometimes reaching millions.

Last week, Public Citizen sent  a letter [pdf] to Rep. Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Sen. Reid (D-Nev.) asking them to prevent the ethically-questionable activity of former Congressmen by enacting stricter disclosure requirements, a ban on all lobbying activities for a two-year cooling-off period, and the creation of an independent Office of Public Integrity to enforce the ethics rules.

Tell your member of Congress it’s time to prevent public officials from cashing in their public service and selling out the American people.

Too ethical for Coburn?

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) thinks the lobbying and ethics reforms passed in January are too strong.  He was one of only two senators who voted against it.  And if the House passes it, he claims he won't run for re-election in 2010:

"If this becomes law, I will guarantee you I won't run again....I will promise you, very few people in the future will run for Senate or Congress because every campaign will be about somebody making a complaint."

Sen. Coburn expressed concern that if a senator committed an "accidental mistake" it could cost up to $500,000 in legal fees. While we are not sure where this figure comes from, we are more curious what type of "accidental mistakes" Sen. Coburn is afraid he may make. Is he afraid he might be an accidental tourist in Scotland, perhaps?

The March Toward Meaningful Lobbying and Ethics Reform

Under the leadership of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the House in a single day approved some of the most critical new ethics rules changes seen in a decade. Lobbyists, and organizations that employ them, are now banned from giving gifts of any value to members of Congress and their staff; prohibited from arranging or paying for congressional travel, except for one-day trips to make a speech or attend a conference; and barred from flying on private corporate jets for campaign purposes, personal trips and travel connected to official duties. Further, the growing wave of earmarks in appropriations and tax bills must be identified with a specific congressional sponsor.

Nearly all of these reforms were rebuked by the House and the Senate last year. Following the November elections, the same reforms were adopted by a near-unanimous vote of 430-to-1, with Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.) as the lone dissenting vote.

Next on the reform agenda for Pelosi is her legislative package, which regulates the conduct of persons outside the House (i.e., lobbyists and former members). This package is expected to contain an equally impressive set of legislative reforms, such as slowing the revolving door and enhancing disclosure of fundraising activity by lobbyists and Astroturf lobbying.

Lobbying and Ethics Reform: Déjà vu or Genuine Reform?

The 109th Republican leadership’s failure to enact meaningful lobbying and ethics reform played a decisive role in the 2006 general elections. Despite pronunciations by some during the lobbying reform debate that voters would not care about the plague of corruption scandals, both exit polls and the election results showed corruption was the top concern. The DCCC, in a post-election memo, observed the direct effects of corruption was the addition of 8 additional Democratic seats in districts tarred by the scandals.

The new Democratic leadership – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid – realize the centrality of lobbying and ethics reform to voters, and both pledged to introduce reform legislation as their first items of business in the 110th Congress.

Understanding the significance of this colossal sea change requires a quick review of recent events. Two years ago, there was no interest in addressing in lobbying and ethics abuses except from the most stalwart reformers like Rep. Marty Meehan and Sen. Russell Feingold. And their legislative proposals went nowhere, never getting a hearing.

Then Jack Abramoff hit the Capitol.

Members fail to go public about their privately-funded travel

St. Thomas, U.S.V.I., is a beautiful Caribbean island adjacent to Puerto Rico. Its white beaches and cool tropical breezes are magnets for tourists, including Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY). But unlike most visitors, Rangel had the cost of his airfare and accommodations covered by the New York Carib News when he visited St. Thomas in November 2005. The trip was officially intended to allow Rangel to attend talks about U.S.-Caribbean business issues. Rangel’s acceptance of the trip was not illegal, but he failed to report the trip within the required 30-day-period.

Apparently, such tardy reporting is a problem for quite a few in Congress. In 2005, 28 Republicans and 25 Democrats failed to properly report privately funded trips, according to PoliticalMoneyLine.

Are these Members hiding something or are they just being lazy? Either way, the days of laissez faire travel enforcement may be drawing to a close. The reform proposal that Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) plans to introduce in January (summary.pdf) would ban lobbyists from privately funded trips and require the disclosure of privately funded trips’ itineraries, purposes and passenger lists. The poor compliance with the current travel rules presents just one more point in favor of establishing an independent Office of Public Integrity, for which Public Citizen has long advocated. Pelosi has expressed sympathy for the idea, but is more likely to study the issue than press for the new agency at once.

You can tell her yourself why the choice is a no-brainer here.    

Ethics Committee gives a slap on the wrist.

In case you still thought the Ethics Committee does a good job of policing the House, they just released their report on Foley-gate. It states that there were no ethics violations; only evidence of negligence on behalf of the Republican leadership to protect the pages.

Mark Foley (R-Fla) resigned in September when his inappropriate emails and instant messages to a former page were made public. The report concluded that Speaker Dennis Hastert's (R-Ill.) office learned of his behavior at least a year earlier.

This report demonstrates just what a failure the Ethics Committee is in enforcing house rules.

Download the report here (pdf.).

A special goodbye...

View this corruption-laden special goodbye to a "special majority" from the Colbert Report last night.  Via The Silent Patriot.

Corruption proves 'extremely important' in election victory

CNN conducted exit polls yesterday asking voters which issues were "extremely important." The results:

42% - Corruption
40% - Terrorism
39% - Economy
37% - Iraq

Despite the relative lack of attention that corruption received compared to the Iraq War in recent months, it came out on top for importance to the voting public.  This is good news for all of us to keep commitments outlined in the Voters First Pledge.  For the new Congress, there is no excuse not to pass real lobbying and campaign finance reform.

Watch the analysis here:

Chamber of Commerce election spending omitted from taxes

Public Citizen yesterday sent a complaint to the Internal Revenue Service about undisclosed election-related spending by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and its affiliated Institute for Legal Reform (ILR).

As 501(c) nonprofits, they may lobby and electioneer on a limited basis, but must pay taxes on the money spent doing so.  Together, they failed to report millions of apparent taxable expenditures from 2000 to 2004.

As one of the largest pro-corporate special interest groups, the Chamber brags about the millions it dishes out to fund attack ads and help elect business-friendly representatives, attorneys general and state supreme court justices.

Some examples:  In 2000, $6 million was spent on judicial races and the Chamber took credit for winning 15 out of 17 state supreme court races.  In 2002, $40 million was spent on congressional, state-level attnorneys general and judicial races.

None of this was reported to the IRS.

What's more egregious is that at least two 501(c) groups, the American Taxpayers Alliance and Citizens for a Strong Ohio, reported receiving contributions from the U.S. Chamber.  Yet, the Chamber failed to report grants or allocations to outside groups as required on its tax forms.

In 2004, the Chamber and ILR began reporting some political expenditures ($18 million for that year), but much less than they otherwise bragged about spending.  In a "President's Update" memo to the Board of Directors of the Chamber, Thomas Donahue claimed the amount spent was closer to $30 million.  Of that, we know $1 million was spent to defeat ex-Sen. Tom Daschle's (D-S.D.) re-election bid and $3 million was spent to oppose former Democratic vice presidential nominee, John Edwards.

Public Citizen also asked the IRS to investigate whether the Chamber and ILR, two separate legal entities, combined funds in a shared bank to avoid taxes.

To read the complaint and see their tax returns, click here.

Safavian goes down

After a tearful plea for leniency, David Safavian, former chief of staff for the General Services Administration, was sentenced to 18 months in prison for lying about his relations with Jack Abramoff.

He was convicted on four counts of lying and obstructing justice including his attendance at the infamous 2002 golf trip to Scotland.  He accepted that trip and other gifts in exchange for using his government position to unfairly advantage Abramoff in acquiring federally-controlled properties.   

Safavian marks the eighth conviction related to Abramoff's lobbying scandals, and was the only one to go to trial instead of pleading guilty.   

True-Blue Reformers losing their color

In 1995, we awarded a "True-Blue Reformer" award to 143 House members (43 Republicans and 100 Democrats) who voted for bills banning gifts and improving lobbying disclosure while voting against five amendments that would weaken the measures.  Last week, we sent a letter to those still in Congress saying their status as “true-blue reformer” is not “evergreen” given all of the corruption scandals that have gone under the bridge since 1995 and that the Public Citizen credential must be renewed with their decision to sign the Voters First Pledge.

As of this morning, one of the class of True Blue Reformers has now signed on, but the rest, including Tom Davis who still boasts of his 1995 honor on his Web site, have not yet responded.  Members of the 1995 “Reformers” group who do not sign the pledge by Oct. 15 -- this Sunday -- will have their True Blue credentials revoked.

What gives?  Look up your members of Congress on the Voters First Web site and make sure they have signed -- if not, call their office and ask them to sign on!

One After Another

It has been one dizzying roller coaster ride for ethics on Capitol Hill this year. Former Rep. Mark Foley's resignation last Friday afternoon -- after the mainstream press picked up the story of his sexually explicit e-mails to minors that morning -- is just the latest in a long string of scandals sweeping across Washington.

Foley joins an ignoble cast of characters who are under indictment or investigation for corruption, or who already pleaded guilty or resigned from public office. Those who  pleaded guilty to corruption this year so far include: lobbyists Jack Abramoff, Adam Kidan, and Michael Scanlon; Rep. Bob Ney and former congressional staffers, Tony Rudy and Neil Volz; Interior Department official Roger Stilwell and OMB official David Safavian. And investigations and allegations are still swirling around Reps. Tom DeLay, William Jefferson, John Doolittle, and former staffer Ed Buckham. I may have forgotten a few names, but it is hard to remember them all.

Yet, with this wave of corruption that swept over Capitol Hill, many Republican leaders -- the party at the center of these scandals, though certainly not exclusively -- continue to believe that voters do not care.

In January, when Abramoff agreed to name names of those whom he attempted to bribe, Congress was falling all over itself to offer the most sweeping lobbying and ethics reform legislative packages in a decade. But in the end, a belief that there will be no consequences at the polls for these scandals let the reform bills perish in conference committee. While Congress this year produced nine guilty pleas, convictions and resignations -- it could not pass a single reform bill to clean up Washington.

Public Citizen is absolutely convinced that the public does care, and helped to launch the Voters First Pledge drive to prove it. All candidates for Congress were asked to commit to lobbying and ethics reform legislation if elected in 2006. Who signed the pledge, and who did not thus far, is posted at www.VotersFirstPledge.org and is updated daily. You can take action with letters to the editor, phone calls to candidates, and much more.

Well-financed lobbyists have run the federal government for years. Its about time that our membes of Congress answered to "we the people."

Bush Fundraiser Goes to Jail

The Toledo Blade reports that Thomas Noe was convicted of conspiring to violate federal campaign laws.  He was sentenced to 27 months in prison and will pay $136,200 in fines.  Noe achieved “Pioneer” status (raising over $100,000 for Bush) by giving cash to friends and associates, who in turn paid to attend a high-priced lunch.

Before sentencing, Noe said, “…I was pressured by Bush-Cheney campaign officials to become a pioneer for George Bush” and “I knew it was wrong.”

The RNC said it would return the money if authorities ordered it to do so.

In Midst of Possible Turnover, Dems Fail to Impress

Roll Call (subscription only) reports Democrats have opened their arms to lobbyists and special interests.  With control of the House in reach, Democrats are eager to muster all the help they can get.  Likewise, Big Business and K Street want to avoid alienation if the House is turned over in November.

In an effort not to jeopardize their credibility or their effort to paint Republicans as “corporate handmaidens,” Democrats have steered clear of taking money from the less popular pharmaceutical and energy industries.

Or have they?

Democrat Benjamin Cardin, who is running for Maryland’s open Senate seat, has advertised he "always tries to do what's right...taking on the drug companies, the oil companies, and the insurance companies."  However, his campaign has received money from PACs representing those very industries, the Washington Post reports.

Republicans running as Washington outsiders have not fared better in refusing special interest funding.  Michael Steele, who has accepted $44,718 from the oil and gas industry, said it would not affect his aggressive environmental agenda.  Rep Wayne Gilchrest (R-Md.), who pledged to work with Steele on environmental issues, said it is tough not be influenced by where you get your funding from.

Perhaps it's not surprising--neither Cardin* or Steele have signed our Voters First Pledge.

*Correction: Cardin signed the Voters First Pledge on Sept. 5.

The 4th Branch May Steer a New Course Come November

The Washington Post reports that K Street lobbying firms, trade associations, and corporate offices are anticipating that Republicans will lose a majority in at least one chamber of Congress, and are looking to hire more Democrat-friendly staff.  Some Democrats have claimed in recent years of being shut out of lucrative lobbying jobs on K Street, largely because of the efforts by Grover Norquist and ex-Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas) to strengthen Republican dominance over the lobbying profession (referred to as the “K Street Project”).

Many Democrats welcome the sea change in the lobbying profession.  James J. Blanchard, former Democratic governor of Michigan and a new chairman in the prominent lobbying law firm, DLA Piper Rudick Grey Cary LLP, said, “This is going to be a big Democratic year.”  Time will tell what this means for the public.  The Democrats are not immune to charges of ethics and lobbying abuses, as noted most recently by the investigation into ex-Rep. William Jefferson (D-La). 

"Ney"-sayers are Major Obstacle for Controversial Ohio Candidate

On August 3, 2002, Ohio voters probably didn’t care, or even know for that matter, that their Congressman, Bob Ney (R-Ohio), was being whisked away on a chartered plane for a golf trip in Scotland.  However after discovering that the golf trip was paid for by Indian gambling money funneled through religious charity foundations, and after discovering that the swanky trip was financed by disgraced former lobbyist Jack Abramoff, Ohio voters will be given the opportunity this fall to prove the country’s dissatisfaction with the corruption in Washington.  Ney’s former Chief of Staff, Niel Volz, and Jack Abramoff have both pleaded guilty, admitting that they bribed the Congressman in exchange for official acts influencing laws, such as supporting Abramoff’s Indian gambling clients.  With Ney's top Capitol Hill aides leaving and after federal investigators slapped a subpoena on his Ohio district director last week, Bob Ney has even described himself as “the most vulnerable House incumbent,” according to the political newsletter Hotline.

While Ney calls Abramoff a con man and claims he was duped by the scheming lobbyist, his arguments appear to hold little water when put next to his actions.  According to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, when Ney filled out his official House disclosure form, he claimed that the National Center for Public Policy Research was paying for the junket and that the purpose of the trip was to give a "speech to Scottish Parliamentarians."  However, that think tank denies sponsoring Ney while Abramoff’s records state that his foundation paid for the chartered jet.  Also, the Scottish Parliament shows that while other members of Congress visited during the same month, at the time of Ney’s trip, Parliament was in recess. "There is no way" that he could have addressed the body, according to a Parliament spokeswoman.

Four years after the now infamous St. Andrew’s golf trip, Abramoff has been convicted and will soon be behind bars, and Bob Ney is facing one of the most contested re-election campaigns in the country as his staffers are either subpoenaed or quitting their jobs.

Abramoff, the man and the mentality

Jack Abramoff has become a household name over the past year.   All one needs to do is mention him in order to bring attention to the scandalous ethics abuses which have involved bribes, lies, Indian casinos, lavish trips to golf courses in Europe, and secretly funneling illegal contributions through charities.

While most of the media has focused on these stories, not much attention has been given to looking into the personality and character of the man who created a massive web of corruption throughout Washington D.C. and the rest of the country.  Who is Jack Abramoff?  What type of person is able to justify these actions to himself?  How does his mind work?

We get a glimpse inside that mind in the recently released 357-page report of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, which details Abramoff's personal email conversations with his colleagues.  The Hill writes about two in particular, which show an astounding level of disrespect and even contempt for his clients - clients he was busy ripping off at the time.

In one email, Abramoff told a friend he was unable to go to lunch because he had a lunch with “the Gabon guys,” referring to representatives from the small, West African country.  When asked, “What is Gabon,” Abramoff offered a racial slur.

In another email, Abramoff labeled an Indian tribe he was working with as “troglodytes,” who were a “lower form of existence.”

Such deplorable bigotry and racism against anyone is disgusting, but in these cases Abramoff was actually speaking about his own clients. Should it surprise us that this same person was only too willing to subvert our democracy?

-Daniel Werner

One more down... how many to go? White House aide found guilty in Abramoff scandal

Today's conviction of former White House aide David Safavian, on charges that he lied and obstructed justice in the investigation of his dealings with disgraced former super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff, is a breath of fresh air. (See today's headlines, below.) While a number of players in the wide-ranging corruption probe, including Abramoff himself, pled guilty to charges, today's conviction follows the first trial coming out of the Abramoff scandal.

Every once in a while, justice is served.

The larger and more important question, though, is who will follow? Safavian was found guilty on one count for lying about the infamous Abramoff-organized trip to St. Andrew's golf course in Scotland in 2002. Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio) was on that trip, and Ney's former chief of staff Neil Volz (who has pled guilty), testifed against Safavian. Will Ney be the next one indicted? What about other inductees in our Hall of Shame, many of them under scrutiny for their ties to Abramoff? Given that Safavian was the top White House procurement officer, will his conviction once again raise the question of Bush's ties to Abramoff?

The even larger question, of course, is whether additional convictions of current lawmakers will bring about changes in the way Congress does business, including better ethics rules and lobbying reform than the toothless jokes Congress offered up this spring. And if not, will that failure then lead to a reaction by the electorate in November...and a new crop of legislators more interested in doing the people's business rather than the business of their campaign contributors and lobbyists?

-Gordon Clark