Back in July, the New York Times and the New York Post appeared in competition for which publication could roll out the most damaging story about House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel. Four months later and they’re back at it.

Yesterday, the Post reported the Rangel receives a tax benefit on his home in D.C. that is intended for home owners and residents of the District of Columbia. Unfortunately for Rangel, he also receives perks in his Harlem home district, where he owns multiple rent-stabilized apartments. Both benefits require that the resident operate their home as a “primary residence.” So, where is it that you live congressman? Harlem? Or Washington? (FYI, we don’t have congressional representation here. So, if it was Washington, you’d be out of a job.)

The Times adds the pile-on today, with a much more serious story. Rangel, a long time opponent of off shore tax shelters, has, in recent years, sought to protect the tax shelter status of an oil-drilling company whose chief executive promised $200,000 to help fund the creation of the Charles Rangel School of Public Service at C.C.N.Y.:

Congressional records and interviews show that Mr. Rangel was instrumental in preserving a lucrative tax loophole that benefited an oil-drilling company last year, while at the same time its chief executive was pledging $1 million to the project, the Charles B. Rangel School of Public Service at C.C.N.Y.

The company, Nabors Industries, was one of four corporations based in the United States that were widely criticized in 2002 and 2003 for opening offices in the Caribbean to reduce their federal tax payments. Mr. Rangel was among dozens of representatives from both parties who bitterly opposed those offshore moves and, in 2004, pushed unsuccessfully for legislation to make the companies pay more tax.

But in 2007, when the United States Senate tried to crack down on the companies, Mr. Rangel, who had recently been sworn in as House Ways and Means chairman, fought to protect them. The tax shelter for the four companies was preserved, saving Nabors an estimated tens of millions of dollars annually and depriving the federal treasury of $1.1 billion in revenues over a decade, according to a Congressional analysis by the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation.

Rangel is already facing an ethics investigation targeting his solicitation for funding for the Rangel Center and his rent stabilized apartments. This revelation, while the congressman claims there is “no quid pro quo,” could do great harm to his stature in Congress. The Politico goes as far as to ponder whether President Obama will want to work through a scandal tarred committee chairman.

Back to the allegations in the Times article. Members of Congress and private interests have long stated that contributions by the latter to charitable interests connected to the former are nothing but simple good will. The understanding, as evidenced by the Times’ reporting, that these contributions constitute an unregulated form of influence seeking led Congress to finally establish some disclosure requirements.

The biannual lobbyist contribution forms mandated under the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act require the disclosure of contributions to entities if they are named after, in recognition of, established, maintained, or controlled by an elected representative. If that is the case, then the Rangel School has not received any contributions so far this year. Unless, of course, some groups are skirting the disclosure requirements.

0 Comments

As reports swirl about Members of Congress in transition, it’s the perfect time to delve further into the mechanisms of congressional authority. How are Members assigned to committees, to chairmanships, to status as ranking members? How are leadership positions determined? Has it always been that way? This is especially true of the US Senate, where even one chairmanship changing hands can have a domino effect across many other committees.

We’re watching as Waxman challenges Dingell, Cantor challenges Blunt, Lieberman faces a loss of a chairmanship, Emanuel leaves a leadership position, and any number of other congressional transitions-in-progress.

Here’s a rundown of some of the most relevant CRS reports on these topics, many of which have just been added to OpenCRS.com. All embedded versions are from my issuu.com account.

(more…)

3 Comments

Update: Please see Ellen’s comment in the comment thread for a clarification of these numbers.

MAPLight.org’s excellent study on in-state vs. out-of-state contributions to congressional candidates provides so many great points of data. The Blog of the Legal Times (BLT) looks at the zip codes with the highest amount of giving to political candidates. No surprise here:

1. Washington, D.C. 20005, with $28.9 million raised (map)
2. Washington, D.C. 20001, with $27.5 million raised (map)
3. Washington, D.C. 20036, with $27.5 million raised (map)
4. Washington, D.C. 20006, with $21.8 million raised (map)
5. Washington, D.C. 20004, with $17.8 million raised (map)
6. Alexandria, Va. 22314, with $12.2 million raised
7. Washington, D.C. 20007 with $5.8 million raised (map)
8. Chicago, Ill. 60611 with $5.3 million raised
9. McLean, Va. 22102 with $5.2 million raised
10. Arlington, Va. 22209 with $5.2 million raised

All but one of these Washington, D.C. zip codes include parts of K Street, the chief lobbying corridor in the capital city. Arlington and McLean are part of a few of the richest counties in the entire country (McLean is in Fairfax County, the absolute richest county in the U.S.) These two Virginia locales are populated with pundits, lobbyists, defense contractors, lobbyists, and lobbyists.

And just in case there were any illusions left about campaign contributions and influence in Congress, take a look at this post from the blog of the law firm Womble Carlyle:

In the October 1 Political GPS we discussed the brave new world of regulation that has been ushered in by the current economic crisis. And from what we can see, “Joe the Hedge Fund Manager” should have as many concerns as “Joe the Plumber.” In short, the financial services industry will need to shift its government relations and PAC efforts into overdrive in order to outrun the regulatory tsunami headed its way.

Which plays nicely into the Washingtonian’s list of winners and losers in Washington over the collapse of the financial industry. Guess who the number one winners are: lobbyists and law firms!

2 Comments

Thanks to faithful reader Ann Minks for bringing my attention to Seattle Times’ Favor Factory.  The Favor Factory offers a database of all Congressional earmarks for 2008.  You can search by lawmaker, state, or name and state of the recipient.  The site also has sections for multimedia, citizen responses, and news regarding earmarks and projects.  The Favor Factory has a great feature that links campaign donations and recipients of earmarks.  For example, this is Rep. Abercrombie’s page you can see in the right hand corner how much those recipients have donated to Mr. Abercrombie in the last five years.

This is an excellent resource kudos Seattle Times for making this information public so citizens can research it and keep their own representatives accountable.

0 Comments

Senators get their own cell phone towers installed, don’t pay for it. Rep. Tim Mahoney continues to sink in yet another installment in “When Sleeping Around Goes Wrong.” Rep. Rick Renzi tries to get the 35 criminal counts against him dismissed. This is today’s news:

The Washington Post released an excellent investigative piece showing that Verizon and AT&T were both working to install cell phone towers to provide service for Sen. John McCain’s Sedona, AZ ranch beginning last year, at a time when McCain’s presidential hopes seemed dim. Sen. McCain sits on the Senate Commerce Committee and the installation of free cell phone towers by corporations under the oversight of that same committee certainly counts as a conflict of interest. Also troubling is the ability of the McCain’s to hide this seeming in-kind contribution from their personal financial disclosures because it was ostensibly made at the request of Sen. McCain’s wife, Cindy. The Senator and his wife keep their finances separate and thus he does not have to fully disclose her financial activities on his annual personal financial disclosure. While the two telecommunications giants eventually abandonded the idea of permanently installing towers, they both provide portable towers at no-cost to the Senator’s ranch.

Rep. Rick Renzi, under indictment on 35 counts related to a land swap, accused the government of taping conversations with other members of Congress and bringing the corruption indictment against him for political reasons. Renzi also filed for a dismissal of the charges against him on the grounds that they violate the Speech and Debate Clause. Renzi is under indictment for allegedly using his position in Congress to push through a land swap that eventually netted him $700,000. Apparently, the congressman abides by the motto of the William Jefferson school of congressional corruption, “If you do it in an official capacity, they can’t investigate.” I don’t think that the Speech and Debate Clause was enacted as a way to make congressional offices into corruption safe rooms.

In worsening news for Rep. Tim Mahoney, an FBI investigation into his affairs is expanding to include the second affair with a high level county official, which Mahoney admitted to today, to determine whether he steered federal emergency funds to her county. An aide close to his campaign also announced that Rep. Mahoney may not seek reelection. If this is the case, all replacements should quickly be vetted to make sure that they don’t carry on the Foley-Mahoney curse.

1 Comment

Congress took a real step today toward legislative transparency, proactively posting the proposed bailout legislation in public, online, in advance of floorconsideration.

To give citizens a chance to fully digest and comment on the proposed legislation, we’ve posted the text of the legislation to PublicMarkup.org for public review.

On Friday Ellen blogged a request for legislative transparency, calling on Congress to release the bailout draft as early as possible:

The Sunlight Foundation is calling on Congress to publish the proposed bailout legislation as soon as possible, to give constituents and lawmakers themselves as much time as possible to examine the specifics of the proposal before it’s voted on.  We will post the draft legislation to PublicMarkup.org as soon as possible, to give citizens a chance to weigh in on the proposal’s specifics.

Any lack of transparency in consideration of this legislation would be especially ironic since lawmakers have blamed the current crisis on financial malfeasance that was hidden from public view.

Before the bailout proposal is considered by lawmakers, it must undergo an even more important test: evaluation and assessment by the public.

Today, Congress responded, and Speaker Pelosi and the House Financial Services Committee posted the bill they’ve designated as the final version.

From remarks Speaker Pelosi delivered at a press conference today:

Before I yield to Senator Reid, I just want to tell everyone that I am now informed that at this moment, you can find the plan on financialservices.house.gov, and then if not there, on speaker.gov. It’s there for all Americans to see, for our Members to read so they can make the important decision they have to make tomorrow in the House.

I also want to say that later when this bill passes and is implemented, all of the transactions related to this legislation will be on the Internet within 48 hours and that represents change. That transparency, that oversight, will be very important to the health of our economy.

In the midst of rare political urgency, as congressional leaders are pushed well beyond their comfort zones, facing the Bush Administration, unclear political consequences, a skeptical public, and posturing from the presidential candidates, Pelosi chose to assert the role of an empowered public.

Ellen identified two shortfalls in transparency; one real, helping cause the finance situation, and one potential, as Congress responds with legislation.  Speaker Pelosi’s statement addresses both.

First, on finance data, Pelosi says “all of the transactions related to this legislation will be on the Internet within 48 hours…”  While I don’t know finance well enough to speak to the details of publishing such data, I can say that this is the same sort of transaction tracking transparency that has made FedSpending.org (and USASpending.gov ) immensely successful — the same transparency that the individual US states are experimenting with (as Grover Norquist recently noted on The Next Right ).

On the second point, Speaker Pelosi points the public to the two sites where the legislation had just been posted.  Now, putting legislation online is nothing new.  THOMAS has been around since the mid 1990s.  Referencing online access to legislation in the midst of intense negotiations, whipping, and public pressure, however, is.

The expectations here, of course, are much higher than with most legislation.  The dollar amounts are enormous, the legislative process has slipped into urgency-mode, and rank-and-file lawmakers are scrambling to establish a position.

Regardless of the incentives facing congressional leadership, and regardless of the substance of the bill, this episode shows one thing very clearly: the bar for public disclosure has been raised.

Ellen, in her post, also points out the distinction between public dialog and “compromises and deal making — the real stuff of urgent policy-making.”  If public dialog is going to remain separated, to some degree, from “the real stuff of urgent policy-making,” as it is sure to in a legislature controlled by centralized party leaders, then the role of the informed public needs to be clearly staked out, asserted, and defended.

Even if many Americans dislike this legislation, and even if much of the legislation was created in informal pre-legislative meetings, public scrutiny and input has been welcomed into that process.

The legislative process, just like finance regulation, depends on public scrutiny for stability and legitimacy.  It’s good to see Congress recognize both.

3 Comments

Two years ago, I was named Time’s person of the year and now I own an insurance company, two mortgage brokers, and I’ll soon own nearly $1 trillion worth of stock. I am so proud of me.

Luckily for me, financial services lobbyists are summoning the economic advisers of both presidential campaigns to help them draft policy positions on how to deal with my newly acquired assets and any future purchases.

It is the “dirty little secret in town,” said one financial-services lobbyist — that after lambasting lobbyists on the stump, the candidates need their counsel on how to respond to a crisis with origins too complicated for most industry outsiders to understand.

…

This week, two of the biggest financial groups in Washington, the Financial Services Roundtable and the Mortgage Bankers Association, have drawn in members from across the country to grill economic advisers from both campaigns, develop policy positions and urge prudence as both parties struggle to craft a regulatory stance on the deepening crisis.

Does this mean that Phil Gramm will be sitting across from himself?

The Legal Times blog reports that the Justice Department will release a number of documents and audio recordings related to the trial of Sen. Ted Stevens. One of those audio recordings of Stevens reveals him to be incredibly cheap. “Ted gets hysterical when he has to spend his own money,” says Alaska restaurateur Robert Persons to VECO chief Bill Allen. Stevens won one battle, to obtain Allen’s medical records. Allen is the government’s primary witness and has a history of mental health problems related to a motorcycle accident.

The Ethics Committee is pushing ahead with an inquiry into Rep. Charles Rangel’s financial disclosure snafus. Consensus has yet to take place as Ethics interim Chairman Gene Green and Ranking Member Doc Hastings released dueling letters on the form of the investigative subcommittee.

I think that someone already did this. He’s totally never on TV, so I can’t remember his name.

As I’ve already written about here, the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac PACs are now shuttered, ending an era of boundless campaign contributions used to keep lawmakers out of their business. Thanks to those campaign contributions and the subsequent lack of oversight, I now own these two mortgage giants.

Which leads directly to a Quote of the Day, from Eric Brown’s Political Activity Law Blog:

We’ll have “public funding” before we know it, given all of these government bailouts of companies with PACs… AIG, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae…

5 Comments

Yesterday, the House of Representatives voted on a bill that ought to offend Americans of all stripes.  The culmination of a compromise with the demands made during August’s pro-drilling, Republican sit-in, the bill would end a 27-year ban on offshore drilling and revoke $18 billion in tax incentives and subsidies to the oil industry. Now it may be remarkable to some because it repeals a near three-decade long congressional policy, or because the Republicans clamoring for a vote all punched their electronic tally machine, “Nay,” but neither of those reasons make it offensive. The bill’s offensiveness is underlined by its being unremarkable.

Unremarkable because it, like too many bills, was nearly impossible to read or study prior to a final vote. The bill, H.R. 6899, clocking in at 290 pages long was introduced at 9:24 pm on September 15, 2008 and was voted out of the House Rules Committee at midnight. The final vote was held at 10:05 on September 16, 2008. That left 24.5 hours for lawmakers, staff, watchdogs, and concerned citizens to read the bill, or if one counts from the time the bill reported out of Rules, 22 hours.

That’s 290 pages of crucially important legislation to read, digest, and understand in one day. If a reader can plow through text at one-page-per-minute the bill would take approximately 4.8 hours to read, which makes it conceivable that someone could have read the bill. (Legislation doesn’t exactly fly by as fast as a novel, like Cormac McCarthy’s The Road, which clocks in at 287 pages.) Parsing and understanding legislation must take a longer amount of time. Additionally, calculations should factor in the basic human need for sleep.

Lawmakers and citizens should not accept that bills will be introduced that no one can or will read. This Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act goes down in the pantheon of bills released with not enough time to read them. Lawmakers should require that all bills be available online for public consumption for 72 hours prior to a vote.

It is as though congressional leaders do not expect the individual offices of our representatives to consult their own gray matter before casting a vote. Instead, lawmakers are positioned in a way that predetermines the passage of a particular bill prior to its introduction.

The bill’s sponsor Rep. Nick Rahall defended the bill’s rushed passage by explaining that there had been “extensive, wide-ranging negotiations that have helped produce this bill.” None of these negotiations were held in public and the bill went from introduction to a vote as if one of its sections contained a faster-than-light drive. So forgive me if I don’t take Rahall’s word on this.

This is a simple element of transparency: bills should not be pushed through without proper time to examine and consult. Citizens should be given time to provide their opinions to their representatives prior to a vote.

4 Comments

If you’re a lawmaker, or former CIA official, caught in a corruption investigation there are many different ways to get out of trouble:

• “Graymail”: Under indictment and facing trial for corruption and fraud, K. Dusty Foggo, the former number three at CIA caught in the Duke Cunningham investigation, is threatening to reveal classified information related to terrorism in the trial. Prosecutors claim that Foggo wants to turn the trial into a referendum on the war on terror and portray himself as an anti-terrorism hero. K. Dusty Foggo: “Freedom isn’t free, it costs prostitutes for me. And then you get your classified government contracts.”
• “Deny”: Yesterday, TPM Muckraker reported that the indictment of Kevin Ring included information linking Ring’s actions to the office of Rep. Heather Wilson of New Mexico. Ring is alleged to have provided gifts, including tickets to basketball games, to a staffer in Wilson’s office. Wilson, who also received campaign contributions and a hosted fundraiser, issued a strong denial of any involvement in Ring’s activities.
• “Challenge”: Lawyers for Sen. Ted Stevens have issued a series of challenges and accusations against the government prosecution including a filing on Tuesday stating that the government refuses to turn over certain documents related to VECO CEO Bill Allen’s possible relationship with an underaged girl.
• “Wait it out”: Republicans are calling for Speaker Nancy Pelosi to remove Rep. Charles Rangel from his post as chairman of the House Committee on Ways & Means. Pelosi won’t budge and instead insists that the House Ethics Committee must first finish their investigation. The call for committee removal seems a bit premature, as I can only remember lawmakers removing themselves, or being removed, after an indictment, guilty plea, or, in the case of Alan Mollohan, when they are the chair of the Ethics Committee. However, I have little faith that the Ethics Committee wil conduct a full investigation by the end of the year.
• Also, CREW released their annual list of the 20 most corrupt members of Congress.

0 Comments

Birds of a feather flock together. On Monday, our nation’s legislators will return, on winged flight, to finish up the year’s legislative work in less than 30 days. The bills of most pertinent attention will likely be appropriations bills, defense authorization, and, if necessary, a continuing resolution. The Senate Democrats just released an e-mail describing their September legislative agenda and groups are lining up to fight over a number of bills. Below, I’m going to take a quick look at the influence game around three of the bills that will surely get a vote in the next three weeks.

There are three bills outside of appropriations and military authorization that will come up in September. These include S. 3268, a bill to restrain energy speculation markets; S. 3186, a bill to provide low income heating assistance; and H.R. 1338, a bill to end gender discrimination in workplace pay. Using MAPLight.org’s listing of supporting and opposing interest groups and Open Secrets’ campaign contribution and lobbying data I have created some graphs showing the level of money groups are pumping into these two influence channels, and which side is spending more.

[Update: I only used 2008 data for these numbers. Campaign finance data at Open Secrets is updated through the second quarter filing period, which covers contributions up to June 30, 2008. Lobbyist disclosures also go through the second quarter filing covering spending up to June 30, 2008.]

S. 3268 — Stop Excessive Energy Speculation Act of 2008

S. 3186 — Warm in Winter and Cool in Summer Act

H.R. 1338 — Paycheck Fairness Act

2 Comments