Watchdog Blog

Insider Trading: How Congress Can Make Big Bucks at Our Expense

It has been a difficult start for the financial services sector thus far in 2009 - yet it may be even more difficult to excuse the multitude of bad decisions made by Wall Street already (refusing to release information about bailout spending, Bank of America's $10 million super bowl ads, obscenely large bonuses for AIG executives...the list goes on).  Thankfully, it looks like Congress and the federal government are finally getting more serious about oversight of Wall Street and the financial sector.

Now also would be a good time to put an end to secret spending and insider trading immunity for government officials. 

A recent piece of legislation proposes to do just that.  Introduced by Reps. Brian Baird (D-Wash.), Louise McIntosh Slaughter (D-NY) and Tim Walz (D-Minn.), the “Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act” (H.R. 682) would ensure that those with access to privileged "non-public information" gathered through oversight proceedings would not be able to use that information for personal benefit in securities and commodities trading.

Specifically, H.R. 682 would negate a little-known loophole in the law which could allow members of Congress as well as executive staffers and government officials to practice insider trading in order to enrich themselves as well as their associates.  Of course,  this type of insider trading would be wholly illegal for citizens like you and me.

The act would also be effective in combating corrupt lobbying practices, since lobbyists and stock traders ("political intelligence consultants") who haunt the halls of Congress precisely in order to glean insider tips from staff would also be banned from insider trading.

The legislation would require members of Congress and their staff to disclose stock transactions of $1,000 or more within 90 days, and require “political intelligence consultants” to register under the Lobbying Disclosure Act and disclose their financial activities.

The time to pass this legislation is now, before our tax dollars pay for any more lucrative insider investments.

Posted by Craig Holman

Victory! Lobbyist No Longer Up for DOJ Nod

The news is in:  Mark Gitenstein is no longer being considered as a candidate to head the DOJ's Office of Legal Policy, according to the Huffington Post, Roll Call, and several other sources.  The concerns about this longtime corporate lobbyist that we first raised on February 2 and reported in yesterday's post apparently have been heeded. 

According to Roll Call, this decision has been confirmed by an administration official.

It's encouraging to see the Obama Administration standing by its ethics policy.

Ian Millhiser deftly captured the significance of this decision in his Huffington Post article:

Hopefully, this decision will serve as a cautionary tale to other ambitious and talented individuals who, despite a long career of progressive accomplishments, are tempted to work in support of practices as abusive as binding mandatory arbitration.

Our sentiments exactly.

Likely DOJ Nominee Has Long History of Lobbying Against Consumer Rights

We've been keeping a close watch over the Obama Administration's potential nominees to ensure that members of the new administration will be advocates for consumer and taxpayer rights.

We recently issued an investigative report on Mark Gitenstein, a longtime corporate lobbyist, who may get the nod to head the DOJ's Office of Legal Policy.

Gitenstein's long list of corporate lobbying activities appear to directly violate President Obama's ethics policy prohibiting executive branch employees from becoming appointed to "issue areas" in which they have acted as lobbyists within the last two years.  A closer look at Gitenstein's lobbying reveals that he has sought to weaken or eliminate vital consumer protections, including the False Claims Act, which has saved billions of taxpayer dollars, and access to court to hold corporations accountable for bad behavior.

Gitenstein's past actions seem to be in stark contradiction with Obama's executive order governing conflicts of interest, and clash with Obama's regular calls for more accountability for government and corporations alike.

Public Citizen sent a letter to Obama raising concerns about Gitenstein's long history of corporate lobbying activities, and suggesting that the possible nomination be reconsidered.  We also joined forces with the Project on Government Oversight, Government Accountability Project, and other noteworthy organizations to make the Senate Judiciary Committee aware that this potential candidate does not have our endorsement.

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.

Obama’s Mistake on Public Financing (and how McCain is skirting the law, too)

Originally by Andy Wilson at TexasVox.org

Today’s New York Times reported that life is not all peaches and cream for the Obama campaign after they opted out of the presidential public financing system.  (See Article “Straining to Reach Goal, Obama Presses Donors“)

Pushing a fund-raiser later this month, a finance staff member sent a sharply worded note last week to Illinois members of its national finance committee, calling their recent efforts “extremely anemic.”

The signs of concern have become evident in recent weeks as early fund-raising totals have suggested that Mr. Obama’s decision to bypass public financing may not necessarily afford him the commanding financing advantage over Senator John McCain that many had originally predicted.

But the campaign is struggling to meet ambitious fund-raising goals it set for the campaign and the party. It collected in June and July far less from Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s donors than originally projected. Moreover, Mr. McCain, unlike Mr. Obama, will have the luxury of concentrating almost entirely on campaigning instead of raising money, as Mr. Obama must do.

It is not yet clear whether the Obama campaign will be able to ratchet up its fund-raising enough in the final two months of the campaign to make up the difference.

Public financing is a boon to any politician who accepts it, as it allows her or him to run free from the strings attached to big-dollar-donations and to focus the campaign’s time on where it should be spent: connecting with voters.  This is why when I explained Public Financing to Congressman Nick Lampson, currently running in the most competitive House race in the country, he was exuberant to think of a time when he would no longer have to dial for dollars. Considering the other two competitive House races in Texas, in CD 7 and 10, think of the race it would be if the campaigns were on equal footing moneywise and ideas, not dollars, affected the outcome of the race.

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.

Bundlers in Limbo

Yesterday, Roll Call ($) pointed out that a hard-won ethics reform is languishing because the Federal Election Commission (FEC) remains without a quorum.  The political wrangling over the Commission – and downright stubbornness of the Republicans in their insistence on the appointment of Hans von Spakovsky has left candidates and lobbyists in limbo.

Public Citizen worked to pass the landmark lobbying and ethics reform bill last year in the wake of continual congressional scandals.  One of the benefits of this new law is that it requires federal candidates – running for Congress or the presidency – to disclose if lobbyists are “bundling” campaign contributions of their behalf.  The FEC is supposed to implement and enforce this new law, and they are out-of-commission (so to speak).

Roll Call quoted Taylor Lincoln, research director of Public Citizen’s Congress Watch division:

The delay in implementing the rule is depriving the public of important information. It’s best the public knows as much as it can.  We’d rather have disclosure of all the bundlers, but lobbyists are the best place to start. By definition, they’re in business to ask the government for favors, so their contributions should be looked at the most skeptically.

Industry and Republican Allies Gear up to Fight Moderate Consumer Health and Safety Bill

by David Arkush and Graham Steele

Republicans and Democrats in the Senate recently spent weeks negotiating a moderate, bipartisan consumer product safety bill, the “CPSC [Consumer Product Safety Commission] Reform Act of 2007” (S. 2663). After these negotiations concluded, and with the bill cued go to the Senate floor soon, industry is making a last-ditch effort to derail or further weaken it. This week, Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) and a few other Senate Republicans, apparently playing the role of mouthpiece for industry, circulated a strategy packet for defeating the CPSC bill. The packet includes a list of “Top Ten Reasons to Oppose the CPSC ‘Reform’ Act,” which is riddled with misstatements about the bill. Apparently, industry knows it can’t win an honest debate against an important consumer safety law, so it’s going dirty.

Lobbyists Playing Bigger Role in Presidential Fundraising

The number of lobbyists raising money for the 2008 presidential candidates already has eclipsed the total for the entire 2004 campaign, according to a Public Citizen study released today.

So far, candidates still in the race have recruited 142 federal lobbyists to raise money for their campaigns, compared to 136 lobbyist fundraisers in 2004.

A clearinghouse of the 2008 presidential candidates’ big fundraisers is available at www.WhiteHouseforSale.org.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has 59 lobbyist-bundlers raising money for him, almost twice as many as former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who has the second-highest number. Among Democrats, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) has garnered the most support from lobbyists, 20, a predictable outcome because her two main remaining competitors have eschewed support from individuals currently serving as lobbyists.

The roster of known lobbyist-bundlers for McCain grew substantially on Monday, when his campaign held a fundraiser at a tony Washington steakhouse. Among 29 co-chairs listed on an invitation for the event were 24 registered lobbyists. Lists of the lobbyists raising money for each candidate are included in the study’s appendix.

Download the Public Citizen study [pdf].

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.

The House Ethics Committee Parties On

The notorious House ethics committee – the one that in the previous Congress presided over the wave of Abramoff-related lobbying scandals without conducting a single investigation into any of them – recently issued absurd new guidelines to keep the “party” in the 2008 national party conventions.

The new lobbying and ethics law bans lobbyists and lobbying organizations from hosting or paying for lavish parties for lawmakers at the national party conventions. The new congressional ethics rule is worded very simply and the meaning obvious on its face. House Rule 25 reads as follows:

"During the dates on which the national political party to which a Member (including a Delegate or Resident Commissioner) belongs holds its convention to nominate a candidate for the office of President or Vice President, the Member may not participate in an event honoring that Member, other than in his or her capacity as a candidate for such office, if such event is directly paid for by a registered lobbyist under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 or a private entity that retains or employs such a registered lobbyist."

As it reads, it would seem this would be the end of lavish soirées sponsored by lobbyists to wine and dine lawmakers at the party conventions.

But wait! Lobbyists, lobbying organizations, party officials, everybody understood this would be the end of especially lavish access – and they all grumbled.  As for lawmakers, perhaps they simply could not bear to part with the lobbyist bashes. Quite frankly, they must have reasoned, what else is there to do at the conventions?

So the House ethics committee interpreted the new rule to prohibit lobbyists from sponsoring a party for a single lawmaker – but if the lobbyist wants to host a party for two or more lawmakers without honoring any specific lawmaker – such as a caucus or delegation of lawmakers – that would be just fine as far as the ethics committee is concerned.

Shame on them.

Ah, the House ethics committee continues to live up to its reputation of enforcing lobbyist access over ethics. This self-created and self-serving loophole must be closed now.  If it’s not, we will be glad to dog any lawmaker – or group of lawmakers who choose to flout the intent of the new lobbying and ethics law and party on at the conventions. 

I hope we don’t have to crash the party.  But if we do, I’ll see ya in St. Paul and Denver.

No More Campaign Cash from Lobbyists

I just learned from on rssrai on MyDD that a Gallup Poll released today shows that more Americans believe that the presidential candidates should NOT take money from lobbyists:

Eighty percent of Americans say that candidates for president (generically) should refuse to accept campaign contributions from Washington lobbyists; only 18% say it is okay to accept these donations.

Wow.  We are in really good company.

Gallup also asked how people felt about Hillary Clinton taking cash from Washington lobbyists with stunning results:

Even Clinton's base supporters -- rank-and-file Democrats -- say the New York Senator should refuse to accept campaign contributions from lobbyists. Sixty-nine percent of Democrats say Clinton should refuse lobbyist contributions -- not much different than the 71% of Republicans and 75% of independents who share this point of view.

On previous occasions, when asked, Senator Clinton has said that she will continue to take campaign contributions from lobbyists who “represent real people”.  I guess folks aren’t buying that anymore.

If you’d like to be the next person to ask her about lobbyist campaign contributions, check out our guide to finding the candidates and getting real answers (otherwise known in the rabblerousing trade as bird-dogging).  Of course, we'd also like to ask all of the candidates to stop taking gobs of money from the special interests those lobbyists represent.

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.

White House for Sale on Counterspin

Laura MacCleery, director of Public Citizen's Congress Watch division, was interviewed about the White House for Sale project on FAIR's CounterSpin last Friday, August 10th.

Listen to hear Laura explain the role of bundlers and the state of transparency thus far in the 2008 presidential election (roughly two-thirds of the way through the program).

Tying it all together

Yesterday morning, the Washington Post explored how the dash for cash puts pressure on lower level employees and others to pony up when the boss has signed on to financially support a candidate. The Post found that 526 secretaries, administrative assistants and executive assistants have contributed to the presidential candidates in the first half of this year, a roughly four-fold increase from the 127 donors with those occupations who contributed during the same time period four years ago.

In a somewhat dismissive aside, the Post cited Former Federal Election Commissioner Scott Thomas' reading that pressuring low-paid subordinates isn't even necessarily illegal as long as supervisors don't "facilitate" the donations. Bundlers would, however, be breaking the law if they are reimbursing their employees under the table. The paper seemed to be making light of what seems to be a credible explanation. What are we supposed to think when an employee, who may only take home $20,000 to $30,000 a year after taxes, is forking over as much as a tenth of their paycheck to a candidate?

They talk big, but will candidates deliver the fundraising transparency we need?

Originally posted on Laura MacCleery's diary at MyDD

Last night, Presidential hopeful Barack Obama reiterated once more that he does not take money from lobbyists:

OLBERMANN: Thirty seconds. Senator Obama, I know you and Senator Edwards have taken a firm stand against accepting money from lobbyists, yet you allow them to raise money for you and, as the phrase goes, "Bundle it." What's the difference between those things?
OBAMA: No, no. I do not have federal registered lobbyists bundling for me, just like I don't take PAC money.  (APPLAUSE) And the reason that's important is because the people in this stadium need to know who we are going to fight for. And I want to be absolutely clear that the reason I'm in public  life, the reason I came to Chicago, the reason I started working with  unions, the reason I march on picket lines, the reason that I'm  running for president is because of you... (APPLAUSE) ... not because of the folks who are writing big checks. And that's a clear message that has to be sent, I think, by every candidate.

Click here for full transcript. 

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.

Gillespie, A Revolving Door Lobbyist in the White House

Listen to our own Laura MacCleery discuss Bush’s new counselor, Enron and Viacom lobbyist Ed Gillespie on NPR’s Marketplace.   As Laura notes, Enron indirectly paid Gillespie $700,000 in 2001 alone, through several conservative front groups, enabling Gillespie to publicly flack for the White House Energy plan.  In addition, Public Citizen found that Viacom, the parent company of the CBS and UPN networks, retained Quinn Gillespie for two years – and $720,000 – to push for relaxed rules on the number and reach of television stations a single company could own.

Public Citizen’s Joan Claybrook had this to say about the Gillespie appointment:

We are disappointed that the president has appointed a lobbyist who has represented the narrow interests of business to be White House counselor, rather than someone who could bring a broader perspective to the White House. Given President’s Bush’s abysmal poll results, he needs someone with a different view.

Ed Gillespie has long been part of the Bush money machine, helping to raise hundreds of millions of dollars from business interests for Bush’s 2004 re-election campaign. Gillespie’s lobbying clients have included some of the nation’s business giants. He fought on behalf of Enron against efforts to re-regulate the electricity market, which would have ended Enron’s price-gouging. He pushed for the energy legislation enacted in 2005, which included some $25 billion in corporate subsidies for oil, gas nuclear and coal interests. On behalf of financial service clients, he pushed for watering down accounting reforms. On behalf of Chrysler, he fought against improvement of fuel economy standards. On behalf of the Chamber of Commerce, he fought for limiting citizen access to the courts. In his new position as counselor to the president, he will be forging policy that likely will undermine public needs.

By moving from lobbyist to chair of the Republican National Committee, back to lobbyist and then to White House counselor, he is a prime example of a revolving door that has spun out of control.

Learn more about Gillespie’s lengthy history [pdf] working for corporations to dismantle government oversight and advantage clients in consumer complaints and federal fiscal policy. 

Bush continues to co-opt the government for big corporate interests by appointing cronies and hacks to offices of influence.  The consolidation of private interests in the public domain is hobbling consumer protections for health and safety.  It’s dangerous, and expensive.  In 2006, taxpayers paid $64 billion dollars in earmarks for special interests.

Colbert on Revolving Door

The much touted lobbying & ethics bill is heading to committee to reconcile the differences between the Senate and House versions and one of the key provisions we have been fighting for may not survive.  Is it too much to ask for slightly stricter revolving door provisions?  Can't members of Congress wait one more year before they cash-in on K Street and turn around to lobby their former colleagues?

Apparently not.

Stephen Colbert finds this debate ridiculous.  Let's demand this reasonable and necessary reform.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.    

DeLay enters the blogosphere

Tom DeLay has his own propaganda site blog.  It's mission? To sell the DeLay brand in the "marketplace of ideas" because the blogophere is "shaping and motivating the current conservative movement...."

Well, it seems to be achieving that mission.  Today's comments section, from the "Call to Action" post, offers a vibrant discussion from conservatives who want DeLay out of the current conservative movement. Ethan Allen Smith writes:

"I appreciate that your intentions may be to bring some sort
of unity to the conservative movement, but let me be blunt
when I say simply that you are not the person to accomplish
this. In fact, you run the risk of doing more damage simply
by being so public."

DeLay is also using his blog to recruit for his Grassroots Action and Information Network (GAIN), which will oppose "secular progressive pressure groups and radical leftist agendas."  Members get "insider" political information and notifications of chances to volunteer.

"Where do I sign up," you ask?

Well, before you get too excited about joining, make sure you have two references ready to vouch for your conservative values and $52 for yearly membership dues.

Also be sure to comment on the various posts on the blog or to send DeLay a question, such as whether the $52 goes to his legal defense fund or why he looked so gleefully happy in his mug shot last spring...

A special goodbye...

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

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.   

Mr. Smith goes to Paris... and Italy, and Hawaii, and...

While on tour last year, popular HBO comedian Bill Mahrer remarked on the revelations of lavish congressional junkets emerging at the time, many of them connected to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.  Mahrer noted that if someone took him to Las Vegas, and paid for the travel, food and booze and a nice room, he would be awfully grateful to that person. He might even be inclined to do them a favor in return.

Just how many legislative favors, I have to wonder, did members of Congress do in return for the 23,000 trips that were given to them by corporations and other private interests between January 2000 and June 2005 - trips worth nearly $50 million, and which included corporate jet rides, $500-a-night hotels, and exotic destinations including Paris, Hawaii, Italy, and, of course, that golf course in Scotland?

These numbers were discussed in The Washington Post's coverage of the new Center for Public Integrity study on Congressional travel (see Corruption News Roundup, below). House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) promised in the wake of Abramoff's guilty plea to ban such privately funded travel, but those promises turned to dust, and Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) won election as House majority leader on the specific promise not to ban such travel. (Not surprisingly, his office was one of the biggest recipients of the privately-funded trips.)

Kevin Madden, Boehner's spokesperson, was quoted in the article as saying that such travel "’leads to greater understanding of the issues' at no cost to taxpayers." While an objective observer might reasonably ask how discussing Social Security at a Colorado ski resort leads to "greater understanding" than discussing it in a Washington office, the assertion that these junkets come at "no cost to taxpayers" is just flat-out wrong.

It is wrong because these freebies that members of Congress, their families and staff receive from corporate America are part of a system of legalized bribery, a system that persuades members to approve multi-billion dollar subsidies for the corporations that pay for the trips, or to pass monstrous corporate giveaways such as the $500 billion-plus Medicare prescription drug bill – all of which cost the taxpayers dearly.

No reform of Congress will be complete until such trips are banned or severely restricted.

In the meantime, though, I certainly understand the desire to go to Paris or Hawaii. Regular Americans like to go to beautiful and exotic places like that too, and we have a word for such trips: vacation. Members of Congress might want to look that one up.

-Gordon Clark

Who ARE they representing?

In "The Lobby is Getting Crowded," New York Newsday has taken a closer look into the explosive growth of federal lobbying - and found many of the culprits in their own backyard.

It turns out that New York has the highest number of former members of Congress turned lobbyists of any state in the nation - 25 ex-House members and one former senator. Overall, the number of registered federal lobbyists has tripled in the past ten years, from 10,798 in 1996 to the current 32,890 who filed last September. (Federal lobbying expenditures jumped 50 percent in just five years, from $1.4 billion in 1999 to $2.1 billion in 2004.)

Most of these ex-members have managed to rack up millions of dollars in fees since making the switch, leading one of them, former Republican Rep. Ray McGrath, to concede that "a 'revolving door' may exist, with lawmakers leaving Congress who lobby for industries that they once regulated...." Gee, you think?

The article goes on to note that "the heftiest payments often come from large corporations and trade associations...[representing]... industries such as energy, health care, oil, banking and telecommunications, which often want changes in federal law, tax code and agency regulations that affect their profits." And these corporations and trade associations know how to recruit.

For instance, former Republican Rep. Bill Carney, who unsuccessfully fought to keep Long Island's unpopular Shoreham nuclear power plant open while in Congress, noted that "I would have enjoyed defense work [as a lobbyist]... but having gone through the Shoreham battle, several [energy] companies offered me an opportunity to work for them." How convenient.

McGrath's lobbying partner, former Democratic Rep. Tom Downey, describes the dynamic a little more directly: "We represent a number of New York firms because we did their business while in the House."

And all this time we thought they were elected to Congress to do the people's business....

-Gordon Clark

The Lobbyist and Me

During my four-month stint as a member of the Clean Up Washington team, there has been no shortage of ethics and lobbying scandals dominating the political scene.

Things frequently border on the ridiculous, such as Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham’s bribe menu or Rep. William Jefferson’s (D-La.) cash in the freezer.  From an outside activist point of view, it’s often hard to imagine how these things happen.  Well, last Friday I got a look at how easy it is.

A friend of mine invited me to an annual dinner reception for Washington State residents who now live in the District.  The event was packed with nearly 800 Capitol Hill staffers, activists and, yes, some lobbyists too.  The $49 ticket price didn’t raise my suspicion until a Senate staffer told me a lobbyist had purchased her ticket.  A $49 ticket…sounds like a good way to avoid the $50 gift limit for members of Congress and staff.

As the night wore on, someone mentioned that the dinner was known for its generous raffle prizes.  I paid my dollar to enter and waited to hear ticket number 1401.  The raffle was large and well funded, with almost 80 prizes all worth more than $100.  Finally, prize 71 came up, and I won!

Inside the prize envelope, I found a card with the logo of Denny Miller Associates on the front and this message inside:

“Please enjoy compliments of Denny Miller Associates a Nordstroms gift certificate.”

Even in my great enthusiasm something didn’t seem right, but I couldn’t put my finger on it.  It was a few minutes later before it clicked: I had just accepted a gift from a lobbyist.

Making matters worse, this wasn’t just any lobbyist, but the lobbyist who gave the fourth most money to members of Congress over the last eight years as detailed in the most recent Public Citizen report on lobbying.  I had spent nearly a day researching Denny Miller and his monetary ties to Congress for this report, and here I was taking his money myself.

What struck me most was lobbyists’ ingenuity for finding new ways to use money to buy influence.  While it is illegal for Denny Miller Associates to give a congressional staffer gifts valued at more than $50, it’s just fine to donate more expensive gifts (with the company name and logo prominently displayed, of course) to a raffle attended by the same staffer.

I have come to realize that money will always find a way to wield influence in Washington.  But we can control it with reform measures – ones much stronger than the toothless laws passed this spring, of course – with the ultimate reform being public financing of campaigns.  Continued good luck to our Corruption Watchdogs in hammering these issues home in the coming months leading up to the midterm elections!

-Collin Jergens

Another aide bites the dust. How long can DeLay, Ney and others maintain their innocence?

Rep. Bob Ney's (R-Ohio) former chief of staff Neil Volz pleaded guilty today to charges stemming from the Justice Department bribery and corruption investigation of convicted former Republican superlobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Like Tony Rudy and Michael Scanlon, two former top aides to Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) who have also entered guilty pleas in the wide-ranging investigation, Volz went to work for Abramoff after leaving his government job - further cementing Abramoff's reputation as a one man revolving door operation between Congress and K Street.

With this latest guilty plea from a top aide, it increasingly beggars the imagination to conceive how members of Congress such as DeLay and Ney who were deeply invovled with Abramoff can continue to maintain their innocence. Their own legal problems aside (DeLay is under indictment in Texas for money-laundering and Ney is acknowledged to be "Representative #1" in the Justice Department's investigation), how is it possible that so many of their top aides can plead guilty to engaging in criminal conspiracies - with indications that the conspiracies might have been hatched while they worked in Congressional offices - and yet their bosses knew absolutely nothing about it?

Perhaps it is the case - only time and further investigation will tell. But even if it is, should these members (and others who are in the investigation's crosshairs) not then humbly resign for gross incompetence? How can the American people expect them to run our country when they cannot even run their own offices?

-Gordon Clark

Abramoff-White House meetings to be revealed - and corruption news goes international

We at Clean Up Washington can barely contain ourselves. As reported in today's top story, below, the Secret Service will release records of when convicted superlobbyist Jack Abramoff's visited the White House - and with whom he visited. This should be an interesting test for new White House spokesperson Tony Snow....

And if you thought the effort to control lobbyists in the U.S. Congress is running into some rough sledding, just take a look across the pond. The European Union, where lobbyists seem to be proliferating (many from the U.S., and many of them starting to adopt U.S.-style lobbyist practices), is also slowly backing away from the problem. In an interview about the EU's stance on the issue, Estonian Commissioner Siim Kallas explains that "to start legislation with compulsory registration [of lobbyists] would face enormous legal difficulties. We would not achieve anything until after the end of our mandate, that is quite sure." Currently there is no registry at all of lobbyists in the EU, and Kallas justified his proposal for a voluntary registration system on the grounds that the lobbying firms were preparing to challenge a mandatory registration system every step of the way.

Lastly, for a fairly thorough summary of the scandals and resulting lack of action here in the U.S., check out "U.S. Grapples with Corruption and Loses" in - of all places - the Tehran Times. (Yes, that Tehran.) They seem to have a pretty good bead on the situation after interviews with our own Legislative Representative Craig Holman, Public Citizen's lobbyist on ethics and campaign finance legislation, who concludes by noting "today Capitol Hill is being run by and for corporations. The motive here is profit and it has nothing to do with what is good for the country." My goodness - even repressive theocracies feel emboldened to rub our government's nose in our own corruption....

-Gordon Clark

Irresponsible Leadership

Even as Congressman-turned-lobbyist Vic Fazio (D-Calif.) asked the audience at a recent Washington lobbyists' dinner to "rededicate" itself "to integrity," the bigger buzz was which high-powered lobbying firm might hire one of the other attendees that night: the recently resigned Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.). Said Charles R. Black Jr., chairman of BKSH & Associates, a lobbying firm, "Tom DeLay has been the greatest strategist for getting legislation through the House in his generation," adding, "he could come over here and be my boss if he wanted to be."

The fact that DeLay was admonished four times by the House ethics committee for his "strategies" of arm-twisting, threats and selling access to corporate lobbyists, or that he is under indictment for money-laundering in Texas, or that he is under investigation in Washington for his involvement in the wholesale bribery efforts of his "dear friend" Jack Abramoff, seems of little consequence to the special interest lobbying world. All they know is that Tom DeLay can get their legislative priorities through Congress, and how he does it is apparently of little consequence.

Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised. While there are certainly corporate CEOs who display genuine impulses of social responsibility, you don't find them represented too often in the world of high-powered Washington lobbyists.

But would it be too much to ask for more leadership on ethics from members of Congress - even Democrats?

Maybe so. While the Democratic members of the House have been (rightly) decrying Republican plans to offer their milquetoast "reform" package without the opportunity for debate or amendment, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) spokesperson said last week that Rep. Pelosi saw no need for a special Office of Public Integrity to independently investigate possible ethics violations. She thinks most Democrats believe the House ethics committee should be able to do this work on its own - even though it has become clear over the past year to all but the most obtuse observers that partisan deadlock on the committee makes this all but impossible.

We hope that many House Democrats will prove the minority leader wrong when the OPI comes up for a vote later this month. But how could a Congressional leader like Rep. Pelosi be so blind on this issue? As respected ethics expert Norm Orenstein of the American Enterprise Institute diplomatically notes in his current Roll Call editorial, "When it comes to ethics, most House Members of both parties have their heads set so far up their posterior orifices they are unlikely ever to see the sun shine again."

-Gordon Clark

Breaking News: Former DeLay Staffer Pleads Guilty

Former Deputy Chief of Staff to Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas), Tony Rudy, pleaded guilty this morning to charges of conspiracy to corrupt public officials and defraud his lobbying clients. Rudy has also offered his cooperation in a federal probe that could extend into the halls of Congress, and right through the doorway of Rep. DeLay's office (or so we giddily hope).

SourceWatch reports that Rudy worked for DeLay's office until 2001, when he left for a job alongside Jack Abramoff (thanks to those rapidly turning revolving doors).

"The purpose of the conspiracy was for defendant Rudy and his coconspirators to unjustly enrich themselves,'' Justice Department prosecutors stated in the filing.

Did someone say "coconspirators"?

-Jess Kutch

Jack Abramoff is sentenced to jail

Breaking news from the Miami coutroom: admitted felon and former super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff, along with his former business partner Adam Kidan, has been sentenced to 5 years and 10 months in jail, for the guilty plea to charges of conspiracy and wire fraud in their purchase of the SunCruz fleet of gambling boats. The two have also been ordered to pay $21 million in restitution.

The sentence was the minimum allowed under the plea bargain Abramoff made with authorities. He will not begin serving his sentence until he is finished working with federal prosecutors in Washington on the wide-ranging scandal probe that could involve up to 20 members of Congress.

-Gordon Clark

Abramoff the Saintly

We can't resist reveling for just a moment in our lead story from the Corruption and Reform News Roundup (below), an LA Times report on the more than 250 letters of support that have been mailed to a U.S. District judge in Miami, asking for leniency in the sentencing of admitted felon and former super lobbyist Jack Abramoff. His family, friends, former colleagues, lawyer associates and even one member of Congress have written to Judge Paul C. Huck, describing him as a man characterized by acts of generosity, his devotion to family, and his deep religious faith.

To give just a few examples....

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif), the only member of Congress who chose to write, described Abramoff as a "selfless patriot" for his ardent anti-communism during the Cold War. (And it's worth noting that Abramoff had no qualms at all about working with Russian oil interests after the Cold War to advance their agenda in Washington - patriot that he is.)

A top aide on a Senate committee vouched for Abramoff as a "caring, pious, and generous man...."

Monty Warner, a GOP media strategist, said that Abramoff gave away "hundreds of meals" at his Washington restaurant Signatures. (Presumably in between all the meals where he was arranging bribes to members of Congress.)

Benigno R. Fitial, an Abramoff client and governer of the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands, who hired Abramoff to help preserve the abusive sweatshop labor conditions for foreign workers on his island, lauded the criminal who "championed our cause of democratic self-government and economic opportunity...."

Others noted how Abramoff invited 14 children and a rabbi to his sky box for a hockey game, opened a kosher restaurant in Washington "at great personal sacrifice" so observant Jews could have lunch or dinner "in comfort," or covered the medical bills of a rabbi's daughter injured in a car accident.

And Abramoff's 16-year-old son, Alex, added this tear-jerking appeal to Huck: "I personally do not know a lot about you or your morals, but I know that if you were to take a look into how my father leads his life, you would see that he is not the kind of person that should be sent to prison."

Goodness gracious, how did such a saintly man ever get in such trouble with the law? Is this perhaps some terrible mistake?

Of course the letter writers made no mention of the Indian tribes that Abramoff bilked out of millions of dollars, (the funding for his exemplary "generosity"), or the workers in the Marianas he helped keep in near slave-labor conditions for years, or the fact that he helped subvert our democratic system of government, and no doubt aided in the misappropriation of hundreds of millions if not billions of taxpayer dollars, thanks to his no-holds-barred, pay-to-play, blatantly illegal version of lobbying.

And while Abramoff can undoubtedly quote the Torah better than I can, I do happen to know that the Jewish religion contains more than a couple pieces of advice about leading an ethical life, teachings which Jack seemed to somehow miss along the way.

As part of his plea bargain, Abramoff agreed to a sentence of between 70 and 87 months in prison. No word yet on whether the outpouring of support for this moral giant will help reduce his sentence at all....

-Gordon Clark

Renaming a Corruption Haven

Signatures restaurant, the Washington, D.C., fine-dining establishment formerly owned and operated by admitted-felon Jack Abramoff, is currently seeking suggestions on its Web site for a new name. That’s not surprising, given the fact that Signatures is now inextricably linked to Abramoff, whose reputation has tainted everything the former lobbyist touched. According to the Signatures Web site, the Wall Street Journal once accorded the restaurant as being “DC's Meeting Spot for Movers and Shakers.”

We here at Clean Up Washington would like to offer a few ideas of our own. Below are some staff suggestions:

“The Trough” Belly up where Ney & company did

“Quid Pro Quo”

“Tommy's” Where fundraising is made easy

Have any of your own?

-Jess Kutch

The Abramoff Investigation and Lobbyists' Home Cooking

Two items in this morning’s Roll Call worthy of mention.

Item #1: File Under “Abramoff”

The Department of Justice requested the personal financial records of at least nine members of Congress and at least seven former congressional aides last year, Roll Call [subscription req.] reports.

The newspaper notes that many of the requests appear to be related to the Fed’s widening investigation into the Abramoff scandal. The list includes the usual suspects – Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas), Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.), Reps. Bob Ney (R.-Ohio) and John Doolittle (R-Calif.) – all of whom made our “Ethics Hall of Shame,” as well some surprises: Reps. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.), Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), John Sweeney (R-N.Y.) and Del. Eni Faleomavaega (D-American Samoa).

It’s not clear yet why these lawmakers, who have never before been publicly linked to the ongoing Abramoff investigation, were among those whose records were pulled. We’re just relieved that someone is looking into this, and that the investigation is progressing.

Item #2: Lobbying Goes Underground

Gone are the days when members of Congress could treat fifty of their closest friends to a skybox reception at the MCI center. That’s because these lavish, champagne toasts alongside professional sports games are now too risky and too ripe for the picking by enterprising journalists. Rather than hold public fundraising events, some lobbyists are opting for the privacy afforded by their own dining rooms, Roll Call [subscription req.] reports.

“A lot of lobbyists have talked about doing more events out of your house,” a Democratic lobbyist said. “We’re all looking around the corner and thinking about how are you going to preserve the relationships you have and also grow them so you have the ability to talk more extensively with staff. I’ve heard people talk about maybe [having people] host different dinners in their house.”

I guess that means Jack Abramoff’s old Signatures restaurant won’t be hosting many fundraisers this year. The former fine-dining establishment was once a highly regarded fundraising spot by Washington’s political elite. Even House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) used the restaurant; in June 2003, Hastert held a fundraiser at the restaurant that raised $21,500 for his Keep Our Majority political action committee from Abramoff’s firm and tribal clients. Now that public fundraising events are too…er…public, don’t be surprised if Washington-area caterers see an up-tick in business.

-Jess Kutch

"What are you benching, buff guy?"

This is too good to pass up:  Talking Points Memo's Muckraker reports that the April issue of Vanity Fair (due on stands next week) includes a nine-page spread on former lobbyist and admitted felon Jack Abramoff, the man at the epicenter of the scandals now rocking Washington. The magazine scored a rare interview with Abramoff, who is reported to have discussed his ties to GOP all-stars President Bush, Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, and other heavy lifters who have denied having a personal relationship with Abramoff.

TPM and Raw Story reports that during the interview Abramoff recalls Bush once joking with him, "What are you benching, buff guy?"

Of course, Abramoff's account doesn't even come close to indicating Bush's relationship with the former lobbyist. The President probably addresses muscle tone with everyone he meets. And really, who doesn't?

Although President Bush has denied knowing Abramoff, the White House refuses to release photos of the two men together, as well as a list of meetings between Abramoff and administration aides. A Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 76 percent of Americans say Bush should disclose these meetings; only 18 percent disagreed.

Help us put an end to this nonsense. You can take action and demand that Bush release photos taken of himself with Abramoff.

-Jess Kutch

Tom DeLay STILL Doesn't Get It

Indicted Rep. Tom DeLay’s (R-Tex.) contentious primary election battle with three Republicans comes to a boil today, as voters in southeast Texashead to the polls.

With his political life on the line, how is DeLay spending election day, you ask?   Going door to door in his home district?  Holding a rally to encourage his supporters to turn out at the polls? Making one last round of television interviews before voters cast their ballots?

Of course not. Incredibly but not surprisingly, Delay is doing what has kept him in office for 22 years and vaulted him to the pinnacle of power in the Republican party: attending a fundraiser with wealthy lobbyists.

According to the Associated Press, DeLay is in Washingtonto attend a fundraiser tonight with two of the capital’s newest high-powered lobbyists.  Former Reps. Bill Paxon and Susan Molinari, prime examples of Washington’s revolving door problem, are hosting the fundraiser, which also features former Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson.  A seat at the election night event starts at a cool $500 for individuals and $1,000 for political action committees.

The absurdity wasn’t lost on DeLay’s leading opponent, attorney Tom Campbell.  "I think it's amazingly ironic and callous he would be spending election night with a group of lobbyists," Campbellsaid. "I don't think he understands how unhappy constituents are with what appears to be a trade of principle for power."

It is possible, though, that DeLay’s constituents will remind him how unhappy they are: This is DeLay’s first contested election in many years… and it’s still only the primary.

-Collin Jergens

From Fixing Elections to Fixing Government Contracts

The Empress of Elections herself, Rep. Katherine Harris (R-Fla.), just can’t seem to stay away from controversy.

In 2000, it was her role as secretary of state overseeing Florida’s presidential balloting that made her controversial. Today, it’s ties to a Congressional bribery scandal. Last Friday, Mitchell Wade, former president of the defense contractor MZM, pled guilty to bribing Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-Calif.).  In addition, Wade admitted to making illegal campaign contributions to Harris and Rep. Virgil Goode (R-Va.).

Harris received $50,000 from MZM employees and the company’s political action committee during 2004, making them the largest source of contributions to her re-election campaign.  Of this $50,000, $32,000 was illegally funneled through employees by reimbursing them for individual donations.  Only two weeks ago did Harris return the illegal contributions, months after the allegations came to light.

Like other lobbyists involved in the recent wave of ethics scandals, Mitchell Wade and MZM didn’t donate to Harris out of the kindness of their hearts.  Following MZM’s largesse in 2004, Wade took Harris to dinner in early 2005 to discuss holding a fundraiser for her and to ask for federal funding to build a Navy counterintelligence facility in Florida.  Soon after, in April, 2005, Harris submitted a $10 million defense appropriations request for the project - an "earmarked" request.  While the proposal was ultimately rejected, questions continue to swirl around the former Ruler of Recounts.  Roll Call is reporting today that Harris’ scheduler, Mona Tate Yost, job left her position and took a job with Wade at MZM in May 2005.

Nor is this the first time Harris has faced questions about her fundraising.  During her 1994 campaign for state senate, Harris received $30,000 from a Floridacompany that was later investigated for violating campaign finance laws.  According to a 1997 interview, Harris expressed regret at being unaware of the questionable contributions and added that, “when it comes from one corporation, I think there's always a problem of perception."

As Talking Points Memo points out, this problem of "perception" can only increase when Rep. Harris lies about the contributions to the media, as some columnists in Florida are accusing her of doing. And just when you think the whole affair couldn't get any more rank, consider this: in the middle of the media's Abramoff/lobbyist reform feeding frenzy, Harris promised to disclose all of her earmark requests. Except, apparently, this earmark request. Her spokesman says it's "privileged information" and they're not handing it over.

Why are we not surprised?

Come back to the Clean Up Washington blog for updates on this juicy scandal, and all the latest in corruption and reform news....

-Collin Jergens