Making Government Transparent and Accountable
The Sunlight Foundation uses cutting-edge technology and ideas to make government transparent and accountable. Underlying all of our efforts is a fundamental belief that increased transparency will improve the public's confidence in government
The Sunlight Foundation Blog
-
Eight Men (Plus) Out
The mid-term elections are over and the people have decided that they want their corrupt members of Congress to come back home. In a Bloomberg article today, Rep. Rahm Emanuel states that eight seats flipped due to the corrupt activities of the current, or recently resigned/indicted/plead guilty, occupant. After reviewing the Bloomberg article and the members of Congress tied to congressional scandals it seems that Rahm has presented a lowball number of congressmen sent home. So let’s take a look at these members of Congress who will no longer be wearing the congressional uniform of solid blue suits, American flag lapel pins, and an unfailing arrogance of power.
* Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-Ariz.): Hayworth’s claim to corruption fame is that he “took at least $56,200 from” Jack Abramoff and used Abramoff’s skyboxes for five fundraisers since 1999. Hayworth did show his sweet side by giving $2,250 of the money he received from Casino Jack to help relief efforts after Hurricane Katrina (because they weren’t getting the money from anywhere else). But Hayworth’s greatest moments came during this, his final election campaign. In a book about illegal immigration that Hayworth released this year he advocated for the “Americanization” program that Henry Ford proposed in his essay “The International Jew.” Then, Hayworth dispatches his aides to a debate at a synagogue where Jonathan Tratt, one of the aides, stated that Hayworth, a Christian, is a “more observant Jew” than any of the actual Jews present. Tratt’s wife was confronted by some of these not-as-observant-as-J.D. Jews and told them, “No wonder there are anti-Semites.” No wonder you’re not a Congressman anymore.
* Rep. Richard Pombo (R-Calif.): Does this guy even need to be profiled? Pombo, chairman of House Resources Committee, which oversees tribal concerns and U.S. protectorates, refused to investigate Jack Abramoff’s corrupt dealings with Indian tribes and the Northern Marianas Islands. Could it have been all the cash Abramoff stuffed into Pombo’s political action committee and campaign coffers? Or maybe it was the skybox tickets for his staffers? Rhetorical questions aside Pombo was known as an instrument of energy corporations and a favorite of former Rep. Tom “Make-my-day” DeLay. Voters got sick of Pombo, the classic Astroturf politician, and his schtick and decided that they’d rather not send a congressman to Washington who is already bought and paid for by.
*Rep. Charles Taylor (R-N.C.): Taylor’s problems did not stem from sharing the name of a genocidal dictator. Taylor did, however, share his signature to help out Jack Abramoff. (Notice a pattern here.) Bloomberg’s Salant writes, “Taylor and [Sen. Conrad] Burns wrote a letter to the Interior Department in May 2003 seeking a $3 million grant for of one of Abramoff's clients, the Saginaw Chippewa tribe. They then included the allocation in a congressional spending measure.” Plus, Taylor seemed more concerned with friends in Russia than about the jobs in his district. Maybe he can look for work in one of those manufacturing factories that Western North Carolina is known for…oh wait, those don’t exist anymore?
*Rep. Don Sherwood (R-Pa.): I think everyone expected Sherwood to choke on Tuesday after he, well, paid a hefty sum to a former mistress who had accused him of choking her. Not much else to say here. The guy’s acting like Wayne Brady on the Chapelle Show; who’s going to vote for that.
*Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.): When your nickname is “Crazy Curt” you know that you’re in electoral trouble. Just weeks before the election Weldon’s lobbyist daughter’s offices were raided along with the offices of a Russian energy company that Weldon had been helping out in his official role in Congress. Weldon has also made wild accusations about the war on terror and about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He even almost went on his own fact-finding mission to Iraq, Indiana Jones style, after refusing to believe that no weapons were found. Weldon’s next stop: a federal court house.
*Rep. Sue Kelly (R-N.Y.): Someone had to pay for the Mark Foley scandal and Sue Kelly wound up being that someone. Kelly, who sat on the page board when Foley was acting like Austin Powers on the Internet, refused to answer questions about Foley’s behavior, ran away from television reporters, and did not show up to a televised debate.
*Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.): Burns was the top recipient of corrupt cash from Jack Abramoff and penned a letter with fellow Abramoff pal Charles Taylor to help secure a $3 million grant for Abramoff’s client, the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe. Burns also decided to spend his reelection race attacking and cursing out firemen, declaring, a la Nixon, that President Bush has a secret plan to win in Iraq, and making generally racist and stereotypical comments about immigrants. Burns will now get to spend more time with his little Guatemalan friend.
*Reps. Bob Ney, Tom DeLay, and Mark Foley: These guys all already resigned their seats and one them is on the way to jail. Their late replacements all lost their respective elections and there’s no need to go back and review the various misdeeds of these three stooges.
That’s ten seats, nine in the House and one in the Senate, which flipped because of the member’s less than responsible activity. Don’t worry guys; your roster is likely to expand. A December 9th run-off between Dollar Bill Jefferson and Karen Carter should bring a Democratic member to the team. And let’s not forget the on-going federal investigations into seven members who are going to be sticking around.
I’d like to say it ain’t so, but this team is only going to get bigger.
-
Abramoff Investigation Lingo
I am not a target of an investigation and neither is Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont. But is Sen. Burns “under investigation”? Is he a “subject” of an investigation? Over the weekend the Washington Post checked the investigatory lingo out and found that despite Burns’ protestations that he is not a “target” of any investigation he is still potentially in deep trouble.
The Post asked Stanley Brand, “a lawyer in Washington with decades of experience in defending prominent officials charged with corruption,” about the importance placed on the terms “target,” “subject,” and “under investigation”:
Brand said that distinctions in a federal criminal manual between a "target," someone the Justice Department has decided to seek charges against, and a "subject," someone under investigation who could be upgraded to a target, are largely meaningless in a practical sense.
"You can’t take these distinctions to the bank, because the Justice Department can change your status whenever it wants to," Brand said. "To me, it is academic. Burns is under investigation."
Burns’ position has taken on new importance in the wake of Rep. Bob Ney’s guilty plea, the reason being that Burns’ actions mimic those taken by the prison-bound Ney. So let’s round-up:
From 2000-2004 Burns received $146,000 from Jack Abramoff and his clients. During this time Burns pressured the Interior Department to give a $3 million grant to a wealthy Indian tribe in Michigan. It appears that Abramoff had the help of Burns’ chief-of-staff Will Brooke as evidenced in this Missoulian article:
In one e-mail, Abramoff said he would get Burns to call Interior Secretary Gale Norton about the money. Abramoff said the idea came from Deputy Interior Secretary J. Steven Griles.
“(Griles) told me to have Burns call Norton and I asked Will to get that done, and he will,” read an e-mail Abramoff sent to co-worker Todd Boulanger on Sept. 15, 2003.
Three months after this email was sent Brooke left Burns’ office and took a job with Abramoff’s lobbying firm. Brooke was also privy to Abramoff’s largesse having gone to the 2001 Super Bowl in Tampa Bay on Abramoff’s dime and received free gambling chips at Abramoff’s SunCruz Casino boat line.
Burns was also a target of Abramoff’s campaign to save his client, the Northern Mariana Islands, from U.S. labor laws. In 2001 Burns opposed a bill that “would have strengthened U.S. oversight over the commonwealth’s labor and immigration laws” after receiving a $5,000 check from, and meeting with, officials from the islands. Burns had previously voted in favor of a similar measure.
All of these actions fit directly into the pattern of activity that led Bob Ney to plead guilty. Campaign contributions were one of the “things of value” that Ney received from Abramoff. That does not look good for the other members of Congress who, like Burns, remain under investigation. Ney’s chief-of-staff, Neil Volz, jumped from Capitol Hill to Abramoff’s law firm just like Will Brooke. After looking at the facts it’s understandable why federal investigators would be interested.
Aside from Burns there is one other lawmaker whose interactions with Abramoff follow the same pattern as Ney’s: Rep. John Doolittle. His story can wait for another time.
-
Corruption Not an Issue? Please!
Is corruption an issue or is it not an issue? The Washington Post puts out yet another article explaining how corruption is not a driving issue in campaigns despite the myriad scandals in Washington. They then trot out Sen. Conrad Burns’ reelection campaign as an example where the Senator’s close ties to Jack Abramoff are not affecting the race. Please! Burns has been hit on ethics issues for almost a year now and you’re telling me that has nothing to do with the recent polls showing him down nine points in the polls.
One of the stranger elements to these “corruption isn’t important” articles is how they gloss over the careers already destroyed by the scandals. Rep. Duke Cunningham, a powerful subcommittee chairman; Rep. Bob Ney, the Mayor of Capitol Hill and the man who renamed a fast food staple; Ralph Reed, one of the most influential Republican operatives and a rising star; and Rep. Tom DeLay, the most powerful person on Capitol Hill. These are not insignificant careers. DeLay was perhaps the most powerful and dominant Majority Leader ever and Reed was touted as a future GOP nominee for President.
A Copley News article provides a different take on the corruption scandals than the Post. Ney’s demise, they argue, puts intense pressure on Republicans, particularly in Ohio, at just the wrong moment. The reelection hopes of three endangered Ohio Republicans, Deborah Pryce, Steve Chabot, and Jean Schmidt could all sour due to the Ney conviction (not to mention the race to replace Ney in Ohio-18).
The Democrats are aiming to take the House this fall and to do so they need to win fifteen races while holding all of their own. Ney’s guilty plea could be the tipping point on four races in one state. Perhaps corruption does matter after all. As Paul Kiel says, “C’mon, people! Give muck the respect it deserves.”
-
Jack’s Back and The Mayor of Capitol Hill Pleads Guilty
And you thought it was safe? Today, Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit fraud and violate federal lobbying laws and to making false statements. Ney, formerly known as the Mayor of Capitol Hill, is the first lawmaker to plead guilty in the ongoing investigation into the activities of uberlobbyist Jack Abramoff. (Please read TPM Muck’s Tribute to Bob Ney.) This guilty plea comes one day after the House passed a miniscule earmark reform, a lame replacement for lobbying and ethics reform. Not long ago the Washington Post wrote this, "Some lawmakers and political analysts believe that voters could punish incumbents during the November elections if Congress passes a minimalist ethics bill. The chances of such a backlash could rise, these critics say, if there are more indictments or guilty pleas later this year." Polls are already showing that individual lawmakers involved in the Abramoff scandal are suffering in their chances for reelection.
Rep. John Doolittle, R-Calif., is one lawmaker who is deeply tied to the Abramoff scandal (not to mention his ties to Duke Cunningham briber Brent Wilkes). Doolittle, a recipient of Abramoff’s largesse, was called the "hero" of Abramoff client the Northern Marianas Islands, a U.S. protectorate that specializes in sweat shop labor and forced abortions, and also wrote supportive letters for Indian tribal casinos across the country despite being adamantly opposed to gambling. A recent poll shows Doolittle, a conservative Republican in a conservative Republican district, suffering to hold his seat against opponent Charlie Brown. Doolittle leads Brown 41%-39%. Augh, indeed.
Just south of Doolittle’s district in the East Bay region of California another Abramoff ally Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Calif., is fighting a similarly tough battle for reelection. The last poll released in this race showed Pombo’s opponent Jerry McNerney leading Pombo 46%-42%. Pombo’s ties to Abramoff, former Majority Leader Tom DeLay, and the oil and gas industry are hurting the seven-term Congressman chances in what looks like an anti-incumbent election season.
In Montana the largest recipient of Abramoff cash, Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., is looking like a stone in the water. Abramoff told Vanity Fair that he got "every appropriation we wanted" from Burns. The Montana Democrats wasted no time in tarring Burns with Abramoff’s misdeeds last year and it looks like their early efforts have born fruit. Burns’ opponent, State Sen. leader Jon Tester is locked in a tight race with the three-term Senator, although most polls show Tester with the edge.
Congress watchers consistently predicted this summer that ethics have had little to no impact on the congressional races this year. These are just three races in which they have. DeLay’s former district, Texas-22, looks like it will flip to the Democrats as well. With Ney’s guilty plea all eyes should turn to the four competitive Ohio elections in OH-15, OH-02, OH-01, and Ney’s district, OH-18. Congress should also take a look at itself and decide if it has done enough after the convictions of two sitting members of Congress and at least five former Hill staffers in the past year.
-
Announcing Online Poll
Today, Sunlight is posting an online poll asking the public if Congress is doing enough to address ethics and lobbying reform in the wake of recent scandals. We’ve posted one serious question and another one with a touch of humor: do you think it more likely that there would be a live sighting of Elvis before the current congressional leadership showed real leadership on the need for reform? (The poll is viewable here, and bloggers are encouraged to copy the source code and post it on their own sites.)
Why the cynical question? Here’s a brief guide to the issue.
Six months ago, lobbyist [sw: Jack Abramoff] admitted to corrupting government officials and pleaded guilty to three counts of conspiracy, fraud and tax evasion. Two very powerful Members of Congress have resigned their seats under a cloud of ethics charges, one of whom — [sw: Randy Cunningham] — is in jail, and one — [sw: Tom DeLay] — is under indictment in Texas.
Seven other Members — Senators [sw: Conrad Burns] and [sw: Bill Frist], and Congressmen [sw: Dennis Hastert], [sw: William Jefferson], [sw: Jerry Lewis], [sw: Alan Mollahan] and [sw: Bob Ney] — are currently under investigation by either the congressional ethics committees or law enforcement authorities (see this Congresspedia page for details). David Safavian, a top official at the General Services Administration, was found guilty by a jury on four counts of lying and obstruction of justice. And at least 11 government officials and former and current congressional staffers have either pled guilty or are under investigation for bribery, conspiracy, accepting bribes, corrupting elected officials, violations of lobbying rules, and numerous as yet unnamed reasons.
Six months ago, after Abramoff pled guilty, everyone in Congress was for reform:
"I intend to move forward aggressively and quickly to have the House of Representatives address lobbying reform. Over the past several months, I have spoken with many members about the need for such reforms. I have been encouraged by the breadth and boldness of their ideas. Now is the time for action." Dennis Hastert. 1/8/06.
"It’s a good time for us to look at more disclosure. I think you’ll see a congressional reaction to this totally unacceptable situation involving Jack Abramoff that’s both prompt and appropriate." — Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), 1/8/06.
"I believe that to regain the trust of the American people that this institution must go further than prosecuting the bad actors. We need to reform the rules so it’s clear beyond a shadow of a doubt what is ethically acceptable for members of Congress." — Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), 1/17/2006.
"First, we must ban privately sponsored travel in the House of Representatives. I know fact-finding trips are important. This body considers legislation that affects people that cannot always travel to Washington to petition their government. Private travel has been abused by some, and I believe we need to put an end to it. Second, I think we need to tighten even further the gift rules. A Member of Congress should be able to accept a ball cap or a t-shirt from the proud students at a local middle school, but he or she doesn’t need to be taken to lunch or dinner by a lobbyist. Recent months have shown that we need a more transparent system. Our plan dramatically increases the reporting of lobbyist activities." — Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), 1/17/06.
"Yesterday we marked the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King. I thought about one of his letters from a Birmingham jail, in which he wrote that, We should always be careful about the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. And that’s why I believe we’re in a position today where we have an opportunity to be bold and strong, and that’s why this is a terrific opportunity for us. … The speaker has just talked about the issue of a ban on privately funded travel. I believe that it’s also very important for us to proceed with a significantly stronger gift ban, which would prevent members and staff from personally benefiting from gifts from lobbyists. One of the things that we’re considering is the prospect of going to the provisions that have been set forth by the White House, which have existed under Democratic and Republican administrations. … We also are proposing that we increase from one year to two years the post-employment lobbying ban that exists for members and senior staff." — David Dreier (R-Calif.), 1/17/06
That was then.
Now, six months later, the Washington Post reports that these calls for change are "a fading concern." The Post recounts, "Lawmakers considered a range of provisions, including a ban on privately funded junkets, a prohibition against taking gifts and an end to steeply discounted travel by private jet. Instead, they decided to strengthen and double the number of lobbyists’ public disclosure reports, and they discarded — or will probably discard — almost everything else." Powerful members of both chambers objected strongly to a ban on privately financed travel, and they were joined by major lobby groups. An independent office of public integrity was shot down in committee.
Currently there are two versions of lobbying and ethics reform. One is S. 2349, the Lobbying Transparency and Accountability Act of 2006; the other is HR 4975, the Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006. Both bills have cleared their respective houses. The vote on HR 4975 fell on mostly partisan lines 217-213. Meanwhile, S. 2349 passed by a margin of 90-8 with the eight votes coming mostly from those who wanted tougher legislation. Both bills are in conference, however only the Senate has named conferees. Senate Conferees: Daniel Inouye (D-HI), Chris Dodd (D-CT), Trent Lott (R-MS), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Ted Stevens (R-AK)
The House has yet to name conferees. The most current statement from the House and the Senate on reform came on June 9th from Sen. Bill Frist and Speaker Dennis Hastert: "Today, we asked lobbying reform conferees to complete their final package before the Fourth of July recess. Lobbying and ethics reform remains an important priority for Congress. We are confident that the conferees will work hard and deliver a conference report that will build trust with the American people by making our government more transparent and accountable." This Washington Post story gives the most recent account of the legislation.
Despite a series of scandals showing serious abuses of power, including the use of privately financed travel, gifts to legislators and staff by lobbyists, and the secretive earmarking of taxpayer dollars to the benefit of private interests, often with close ties to legislators and lobbyists, we think this Congress has done nothing to restore the trust of the public in the integrity of its work.
It’s time to find out what you think.
-
Afternoon News:
- Rep. [sw: William Jefferson] (D-LA) secured a $100,000 bribe for the Vice President of Nigeria to get leverage in dealing with the Nigerian state phone company, according to the New Orleans Times-Picayune. Jefferson received the $100,000 from Lori Mody, the woman who wound up turning on the congressman, and promptly hid $90,000 in his freezer while telling Mody that he had given the money to the Vice President. The money was recovered in an FBI raid of Jefferson’s house. The big question here is whether Jefferson was ripping off Mody and is that why she decided to turn him in?
- All eyes are on the congressional race to fill [sw: Duke Cunningham]’s (R-CA) House seat. Cunningham resigned last year and subsequently pled guilty to accepting bribes and was sentenced to 8 years and 8 months in prison.
- Another big race will test how Abramoff-related charges are affecting the image of Sen. [sw: Conrad Burns] (R-MT) as he faces a state Sen. Bob Keenan in the Montana Senate Republican primary.
- The Associated Press rewards bad journalism.
- Closing arguments in the David Safavian case will be held next Monday, according to the Associated Press.
- And finally, House Minority Whip [sw: Steny Hoyer] (D-MD) asserted that Jefferson should step down from the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee. When asked why he gave this reason, "I think the reason is because he sits on a tax-writing committee and he had $90,000 found in his freezer … I think he’s got a tax problem, if nothing else." (CongressDailyPM)
-
Burning Up the Fundraising Trail:
Hotline On Call Blog shows that Sen. [sw: Conrad Burns] (R-MT) is burning up the fundraising trail:
Senator Burns Upcoming Events/ June 2006
6/8 Dinner with Senator Burns and Special Guest Senator Lott
6:30 pm-Cocktails, 7:00 pm-Dinner
The Caucus Room
401 9th Street, NW, Eisenhower Room
$2,000 Per Sponsor/$1,500 Per PAC/ $1,000 Per Person
6/21 Breakfast with Senator Burns and Special Guest Senator Grassley
8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.
Patton Boggs
2550 M Street, N.W.
$2,000 Per Host / $1,000 Per PAC / $500 Per Person
6-20 Reception with Senator Burns at the Home of Senator and Mrs. Bill Frist, M.D.
6:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
The Frist Residence: 2860 Woodland Drive, N.W.
$5,000 Per PAC Hosts (4 Tickets) / $2,500 Per PAC Sponsor (2 Tickets)
General Tickets: $1,500 PAC and $1,000 Individual
6-29 Breakfast with Senator Burns and Special Guest, Senator Robert Bennett
8:00 AM to 9:00 AM
Charlie Palmer’s
101 Constitution Avenue, NW
-
Mid-Morning News:
- Yet another Bush Pioneer pleads guilty, this time in Ohio. Tom Noe, a big Republican fundraiser and coin collector, admitted "that he used friends and colleagues to illegally pour thousands of dollars into the effort to re-elect President Bush," according to the Toledo Blade. Noe joins Jack Abramoff as Bush Pioneers who will be sent to prison. Brent Wilkes, alleged to have bribed Jailed Rep. Duke Cunningham, is also a Bush Pioneer under investigation by the Justice Department. Noe will face up to 30 months in prison.
- According to the New York Times, ethics officials testifying in the trial of David Safavian stated that he "had not told them important facts about his relationship with Abramoff" while he was working at the General Services Administration.
- The San Bernadino Sun reports that San Bernadino County has been asked by federal investigators to turn over "records related to the county’s contract with a top D.C. lobbying firm tied to Rep. Jerry Lewis."
- Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT) continues to face questions due to his relationship with Jack Abramoff, according to the Associated Press.
-
Lobbyist Fundraisers:
Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT) doesn’t know when to quit. The Billings Gazette reports that Burns is attending a lobbyist fundraiser at the offices of Patton Boggs despite the fact that the Senator has been under investigation in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal.
The Patton Boggs fundraiser will be hosted by five lobbyists at the firm, three of whom list one of their specialties as “appropriations” on the firm’s Web site. Burns is a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee.
One of the hosts, Kevin O’Neill, has “secured more than $100 million in federal appropriations for his clients,” according to the Web site.
“Senator, could you pass me that croissant. And I’ll have that $50 million appropriation while you’re at it. By the way, here’s your $500 check.”
The event is $500 per person and $1000 per PAC.
-
Burns’ Massive Earmark; Coburn’s Amendment:
According to Knight Ridder Newspapers, Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT) inserted one of the largest earmarks into the controversial emergency spending legislation for Katrina and Iraq. Burns’ earmark totals $3.9 billion and is meant “to help farmers hurt by any natural disaster, not just last year’s hurricanes. The money includes aid to offset the high costs of oil, making agriculture one of the few industries to get energy-related assistance.” Meanwhile Tom Coburn’s (R-OK) amendment to kill the railroad relocation in Mississippi, derisively labeled the “railroad to nowhere”, failed in a 49-48 vote. Some those voting to keep the $700 million railroad relocation earmark in the spending bill “were several of the 35 senators who had pledged earlier in the day to back Bush’s veto if he cast it.”
UPDATE: NZ Bear at Porkbusters has a roll call of those voting against Coburn’s amendment.
