In today’s edition, Roll Call profiles how members of Congress increasingly pimping their top aides as a way to raise campaign cash. The paper quoted one lobbyist as saying the main attractions were “the powers behind the throne.”

Twice over the past couple of months Democrats have used senior staffers as the draw for lobbyists to attend and write checks. In June, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee held a fundraiser featuring Senate chiefs of staff. Also in June, the DCCC held a $1,000 a head fundraiser featuring leadership staffers and committee staff as the draw. Chaired by Yelberton Watkins, chief of staff to Majority Whip James Clyburn, the event raised nearly $250,000, according to the paper. Republicans are “offering up staffers as fundraising bait,” too, according to Roll Call. They’ve held two fundraisers featuring chiefs of staff over the past year.

Roll Call quotes a lobbyist as saying the success of these events point to an irony in the lobbying reform laws Democrats enacted. “By restricting opportunities for lobbyists to mingle with staff, the law puts a premium on these types of fundraisers.”

Defenders of the practice note that chiefs of staff, at least, frequently carry a political portfolio on top of their policy duties. Top staffers for lawmakers of both parties are often on the campaign payroll and play an important year-round role helping their bosses fill their campaign coffers.

Others, including some lobbyists who attended last month’s DCCC fundraiser, said such events can put both solicitors and donors in an uncomfortable position. They ask professionals who are usually careful to keep their daytime conversations limited to legislative matters to engage over the give-and-take of campaign money.

“It did seem a little odd,” said one lobbyist who went to the DCCC event last month. Added another, “I have mixed feelings about it, but it works. It’s totally legal, but it probably pushes the envelope a little bit.”

A Republican lobbyist, who attended the NRSC event earlier this year, called the practice a “gray area.”

“It’s a little uncomfortable. Obviously there needs to be some separation between the money side of politics and the policy side of politics. That’s easy enough for Members of Congress because they’re also candidates. That dance gets a little more diffuse at the staff level,” he said. “But if both sides are doing it - it’s mutually assured destruction.”

This is how Washington works. Money gets you access to power. And real instantaneous disclosure would bring these practices to light more quickly and stop a lot of it.

Hat tip: Matt Stoller

0 Comments

Now boarding, El Al nonstop flight to Israel. Please make sure your suitcases of money are properly secured in the Prime Minister’s house. William Jefferson eat your heart out. An investigation into corruption in Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s office led to a search of Olmert’s house where suitcases of money were found. The suitcases, containing hundreds of thousands in American dollars (I know what you’re thinking, American dollars, aren’t they worthless now), came from New York businessman Morris Talansky, referred to in coded transmissions as "the Laundry Man." Olmert denies any wrong doing, claiming that the money was for campaign purposes. Judah Grunstein at World Politics Review makes about the only observation one can:

I don’t know a whole lot about Israeli campaign finance laws, but I imagine that suitcases full of cash that go undeclared until a police raid on your home probably violate them.

Back here in the states, the Department of Justice opened a new investigation into the possible misuse of congressional staff by two offices. Reps. Jane Harman and Neil Abercrombie were accused of using congressional staff to do campaign work by a former staffer who recently plead guilty to fraud charges. It is a violation of House rules for congressional staff to do campaign work unless it is on their own time. This may also violate federal law statutes regarding the solicitation of political contributions from employees.

Both Harman and Abercrombie denied using staff for campaign work. It should also be noted that these violations rarely go anywhere. If anything, members get a slap on the wrist, which in congressional terms is a politely worded letter that stops short of admonishment. The House Ethics Committee should investigate this alleged misuse of campaign staff. They did recently when Rep. John Conyers was alleged to have forced a staffer to do campaign work and they should do so again. I’m not holding my breath though. (Sigh.)

0 Comments

Last week, Sunlight hosted Larry Lessig as he unfurled the carpet for his new project, Change Congress. The Change Congress effort will ask candidates to select from a pledge whether they will refuse lobbyist and PAC money, refuse earmarks, support public financing, support full transparency in Congress, or a selection of all or some of these proposals. Today, Roll Call reports on the kind of practice that seems to highlight the institutional problems that Congress faces in dealing with the issue of money and influence in the Capitol. The problem does not rest solely with members themselves:

A top aide to Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.) has used his employment with the House to help win local races, repeatedly claiming in campaign literature and public meetings that he is responsible for securing millions in federal earmarks for the village of Oak Lawn, while also racking up thousands in campaign contributions from companies with business before Lipinski’s Congressional committees.

Lipinski’s state chief of staff, Jerry Hurckes, who also worked for the Congressman’s father, former Rep. Bill Lipinski (D-Ill.), has served as an elected member of the Oak Lawn Board of Trustees since 1999.

His positions as a Lipinski staffer sparked a brouhaha in Oak Lawn following a March 11 board meeting during which he castigated the village manager and other board members for meeting with a Washington, D.C.-based Congressional lobbyist, accusing them of attempting “to do an end run around [him] and not deal with Jerry Hurckes.”

Hurckes biggest problem appears to be that he is likely in violation of ethics rules that disallow staffers who hold other elected office from acting in their capacity as a congressional staffer to promote and/or aid their role as an elected official. Hurckes has repeatedly taken credit for earmarks, legislation, and promoted himself as a conduit for interests that relate to his role on the Board of Trustees.

Other Board members allege that Hurckes is using his post as a way to boost his own political career. Hurckes currently operates a campaign committee to run for mayor. He has also received large contributions from big companies that have interests that do not relate to Oak Lawn, but to the federal government and the committees on which Dan Lipinski sit.

As mentioned in the Roll Call article, these revelations came out due to a row between the Hurckes and his fellow Board members over the Board’s attempt to hire a lobbyist in Washington to pursue their interests. That alone shows the depth of the problem with this staffer. His village Board could not trust him, a congressional staffer, to hear their concerns to such a degree that they felt the need to hire a lobbyist to talk to the congressman’s office. That’s all you really need to know.

0 Comments

LegiStorm - an insanely useful site of congressional information including staffer salaries and other disclosures - has, for the first time, posted PDFs of the personal financial disclosures that some staffers are required to file. For every member of Congress, at least one staffer must file a personal financial disclosure. If a staffer is making the maximum pay, as some chiefs of staff do, they must file a disclosure. Staffers hold a lot of power on Capitol Hill and are often overlooked as recipients of undue influence from outside groups. LegiStorm notes this in their press release:

Most disclosures are relatively mundane and appear to demonstrate those staffers have no discernible potential conflicts of interest, Friedly said. However, hundreds of staffer disclosures reveal ties to interest groups and lobbying firms, either as a past job, a spouse’s work or a future employment agreement. Others reveal lucrative side jobs, adding as much as $100,000 or more to their federal pay.

In an article in Roll Call, LegiStorm’s Jock Friedly explains the importance of publicly disclosing this information on the Internet:

While Member financial disclosures are relatively easy to find online, getting ahold of staff disclosures is much harder, Friedly noted, since it usually requires a trip to Capitol Hill.

“Currently, there’s no way to get this information if you’re a blogger out in California,” Friedly said. “It’s really making things possible that weren’t possible before.”

Friedly also expects some negative feedback due to posting these documents. LegiStorm has been criticized in the past for posting disclosures by staffers, most notably the disclosure of their salaries, by those who feel this information is private and personal. Our fearless Executive Director Ellen Miller makes the transparency argument in Roll Call today:

But in the age of the Internet, full disclosure and transparency can only come when things are published online for the entire world to access, argued Ellen Miller, executive director of the Sunlight Foundation, a group that advocates using the Internet for transparency.

Miller argued that senior staffers have “a huge influence over Members of Congress” and should expect to have their lives scrutinized a bit more than the average American.

“They are senior-level officials of government,” Miller said. “They knew this requirement when they took this job. … It’s nothing that wasn’t available before. This just makes it more available.”

Go check out the new database here.

0 Comments

Roll Call’s John Stanton has noticed that the disclosure requirement for members of Congress who might personally profit from earmarks–part of the reforms adopted by the House and the Senate–doesn’t apply to congressional aides. In October 2006, USAToday ran a big story by Matt Kelley and Pete Eisler that tracked the phenomenon among aides attached to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees and their members, and found that,

The connections are so pervasive that, in 2005 alone, appropriations bills contained about $750 million for projects championed by lobbyists whose relatives were involved in writing the spending bills.

In all, USAToday identified 54 relatives of aides and members who lobbied in 2006. And, as Stanton notes, They highlighted a few of them:

• Lobbyist Juliet Pacquing collected $60,000 last year from Rhode Island manufacturer TPI Composites, lobbying disclosure forms show. Her husband, Kevin Cook, is the top staffer for the House Appropriations subcommittee on energy and water, chaired by Rep. Dave Hobson, R-Ohio. In news releases, Hobson took credit for securing money for TPI to develop an Army vehicle similar to the Humvee but with lighter materials. The total: $4.5 million. Hobson said Pacquing’s relationship did not influence him.

• Lobbyist Holly Piper’s firm took in $220,000 last year from e-Cavern, a company seeking federal funding to build an underground facility to protect financial information in a Kentucky cavern. Piper’s husband is Billy Piper, chief of staff to Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., a senior member of the Appropriations Committee and the second-ranking Senate Republican. McConnell added $1.5 million to an appropriations bill for the project. McConnell’s spokesman said Holly Piper’s relationship had nothing to do with the senator’s decision.

And, as Stanton reports, there’s still no requirement that those aides who secure future earmarks for a spouse’s client to disclose any potential conflicts.

I found these bits from the article (regrettably, it’s subscription only) especially interesting:

With no uniform rules governing the connection between lobbyists and aides, some lawmakers have instituted their own rules. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), for instance, have strict rules prohibiting relatives of aides from lobbying their offices.

Likewise, a spokesman for Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) — whose wife, Catherine, is a lobbyist — said “Sen. Stevens has a long-standing policy that staff members’ spouses or his spouse is not to lobby them on any issue.”

A Reid spokesman also said the Majority Leader has banned lobbying of his office by the spouses of aides.

Following the investigation of his office, Specter put in place new rules governing his staff, including a ban on family members of aides lobbying Specter or his staff, barring aides from dealing with firms that employ their family members and full disclosure of any such relationships throughout the earmark consideration process.

Are these written policies? Why aren’t they on the members’ respective Web sites? How many other members have such policies?

0 Comments