Congress doesn’t spin records, they spin in revolving doors. And those doors are spinning faster than ever, according to a study from Public Citizen. The Politico reports on the study, which shows that between 1998 and 2004 a whopping 43 percent of retired lawmakers became lobbyists:

A study done in the post-Watergate era estimated that only 3 percent to 10 percent of retiring members of Congress became lobbyists.

But, from 1998 to 2004, 283 retired lawmakers became lobbyists — a whopping 43 percent of all retiring members, according to a study done by Public Citizen, a nonpartisan watchdog group.

In 2005, eight members joined lobbing firms, although only four ultimately registered to advocate on Capitol Hill. A year later, another nine members followed.

With another seat-cleansing November election apparently in the making, the lobbyist ranks are likely to swell again later this year.

While reforms passed in the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act were meant to stop the flow of lawmakers and staffers down the block to K Street, the cases of Al Wynn, Dennis Hastert, Trent Lott, and Richard Baker all show that the desire to cash in on connections on the Hill is not abating.

Unlike the video below, the revolving door in Washington doesn’t appear to be ready to break anytime soon:

0 Comments

Speaking of Change Congress, I was reading Japhet Els’ posting about earmarks and wanted to weigh in here. (I just joined the Change Congress Google Group and will post this there, too.)

First of all, it is always easier to identify the problem than to solve it, no matter which policy arena you are playing in. But in this case, it’s even hard to identify the problem. Is it that lawmakers get to decide where to spend government money and the process is too subjective? (If not them, would a government bureaucrat know the needs of a district better?) Is it that the private financing of public elections corrupts public officials absolutely (or partially), and so we can’t trust the spending of government money to them because they simply can’t make unbiased decisions? (I kind of think the latter is a big part of the problem if not the whole of it.) Is it because some lawmakers have private investments in companies that might execute the contracts to perform the work designated by earmarks or that they make decisions to benefit their own personal holdings. (See Dennis Hastert.). It’s probably all of the above and more. (See Bill Allison’s frequent blog postings on earmarks.)

Second, proposals for reform have to be realistic. (Yes, they can be idealistic and realistic at the same time.) It is simply not realistic to propose to ban earmarks, I mean, someone has to decide which bridges and roads need to be fixed, which universities are doing great research and need to be supported, which community health clinics deserve government money, and yes too, how many new bombers we need. And while I understand that calling for an earmark ban is useful as an organizing vehicle, as policy it doesn’t make a lot of sense. Who would decide how to spend the money? And even if you suspend my disbelief, a history of reform efforts show us that such a "ban" would most likely drive the spending underground and make it even hard to track how Congress spends taxpayer money. The money will get spent.

Fundamentally, banning earmarks is like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. It’s a political point now being made by all those who attempt to represent themselves as populists - faux or real.

Instead, how about full and complete transparency for earmarks: who is requesting them, for what, with lots of details about costs and disclaimers about personal connections by lawmakers, along with a requirement that they all be posted for a minimum of 72 hours online in a downloadable format before they are voted on? We could easily craft such a policy. (No neither the House nor Senate went as far as what needs to be done to get real 21^st century style disclosure in their last round of reforms. Minimally this ought to be a first step.

0 Comments

Over the weekend the Washington Post reported further on the contents of the omnibus package bill, the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006. The bill, one of the last items passed of the 109^th Congress, is representative of much that is wrong with the legislative process and in such serves as a perfect coda for a Congress that will be remembered as one of the worst.

The Post article tackles some last minute lawmaking by both Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.). The two party leaders inserted rejected and opposed initiatives regarding public land sales and Medicare into the bill at the last second despite previously voiced opposition.

Both provisions have been criticized as potentially harmful to public interests. Land-use activists complained this week that Reid's provision would sell too much of the federal land to private developers and that it circumvents land-disposal procedures. Several senior senators objected to Hastert's provision on the floor of the Senate, saying it favored one type of Medicare plan over others. Representatives of Aon Corp., an insurance company based in Hastert's home state, lobbied for the provision.

Hastert’s provision was previously rejected by Senate negotiators on December 7^th before being slipped into the bill just in time for the final vote. The bill also included a previously mentioned 520 tax earmarks in the form of import tariff breaks for individual companies previously sought by lawmakers and later slipped into this omnibus bill.

The Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 began as a tax bill introduced by Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Ca.) to “provide that the Tax Court may review claims for equitable innocent spouse relief and to suspend the running on the period of limitations while such claims are pending.” By the time that it passed it was filled with tax breaks and special provisions like those sought by Reid and Hastert.

The final version of the bill was not available to the public prior to Congress approving it. It’s well passed time for Congress to change its habits of back-room dealing and secretive lawmaking. It’s not just the earmarks that need to be brought out into the open, but the whole process of legislative deal making.

Imagine that the final version of this bill was available for 72 hours prior to a vote. We wouldn’t have to rely on Washington Post and New York Times postscripts to relay the various misdeeds. Instead bloggers and journalists could both pick these special interest-packed-porkfests apart and put pressure on lawmakers to remove provisions and instead pass bills that have undergone a proper and transparent review process.

0 Comments

Does it surprise anyone that Rep. Tom Reynolds’, R-N.Y., chief of staff Kirk Fordham informed staff of a top House leadership member of Mark Foley’s internet escapades back in 2004? After Fordham "resigned" his position as the chief of staff he admitted that, "…even prior to the existence of the Foley e-mail exchanges I had more than one conversation with senior staff at the highest level of the House of Representatives asking them to intervene when I was informed of Mr. Foley’s inappropriate behavior." As I detailed yesterday nobody should be shocked by the fact that Dennis Hastert doesn’t run a tight ship. In their book, The Broken Branch, congressional scholars Norm Ornstein and Thomas Mann explain Hastert’s actions in the Ethics Committee purge of 2005 thusly:

The signals by the Speaker could not have been more clear: take your responsibilities as guardians of House ethics seriously and you will be the ones stigmatized; play the game and make sure that no ethics issues are raised about your party colleagues or are downplayed and diluted, and career enhancement awaits. (pgs 190-91)

What kind of message does this kind of behavior send to members? If you are Reynolds or Rep. Rodney Alexander, R-La., do you really want to be the one to raise ethics issues forcefully? Even if Hastert and the GOP leadership had any interest in solving ethics issues they could not have referred Foley’s case to the House Ethics Committee because Hastert’s purge knocked the committee out of business.

Hastert’s history of institutional neglect is what places him at the center of this ever growing scandal. Many have already put Hastert’s role as Speaker on a death watch. Let’s see if he can get past this week.

0 Comments

The Mark Foley scandal has engulfed the Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, R-Ill. Today the conservative Washington Times called for the Speaker’s resignation and Majority Leader John Boehner reiterated that Hastert had told him that the matter would be taken care of earlier this year. Hastert was once said to “take this laissez-faire attitude on things”. This is evident in the Foley case, but it is also clear from his history as Speaker. Hastert, not acting like a good coach, seems to let problems fester or he actively works to cover them up. It comes as no surprise that his stewardship of the House has come under fire due to the revelations of the Foley scandal.

Looking back on Hastert’s rule as Speaker you can find numerous instances where he not only did not take the lead but led Congress in the wrong direction.

March, 1999: Hastert’s rise to Speaker attracts swarms of Washington lobbyists. In a departure from former Speaker New Gingrich’s fundraising in Southern and Midwestern states Hastert “has begun offering industry lobbyists the kind of deal they like: private audiences where, for a price, they can voice their views on what kind of agenda the 106th Congress should pursue.”

1999-2006: Earmarking under Hastert’s leadership explodes. In 1999 there were only 2,838 earmarks. In 2005 there were 13,997. That is nearly a 400 percent increase in earmarking.

June, 2003: Hastert holds a fundraiser at Jack Abramoff’s restaurant Signatures and collects $21,500 for his Keep Our Majority PAC. Seven days later Hastert signs a letter to Interior Secretary Gale Norton along with the rest of the House leadership in support of one of Abramoff’s tribal clients. The letter was written by Abramoff’s lobbying team. Hastert’s campaign committee and PAC took in well over $100,000 from Jack Abramoff and his clients throughout the years.

November, 2003: The vote on the Medicare prescription drug bill was held open for three hours as Hastert and the Republican leadership tried to switch votes to pass the bill. Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, was later admonished by the House Ethics Committee for “inappropriate behavior” when he offered support for the candidacy of retiring Rep. Nick Smith’s, R-Michigan, son in exchange for Smith switching his “nay” vote to “yea”. Hastert talked to Smith fours times during the three-hour vote. Independent political observers have widely claimed that the three-hour vote was an extreme abuse of the legislative process.

November, 2004: Hastert engineers a rule change that protects the leadership post of the ethically challenged Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, in case he is indicted on felony charges for his role in the 2003 Texas redistricting.

November, 2004: Hastert announces a policy whereby he will rule by a “majority of the majority.” This policy states that “Congress will pass bills only if most House Republicans back them, regardless of how many Democrats favor them.”

February, 2005: Hastert purges the House Ethics Committee of Republicans who voted to admonish Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, and replaces them with top dollar recipients of DeLay’s PAC’s largesse. The Ethics Committee shuts down in protest of Hastert’s actions.

August, 2005: Hastert secures a $207 million earmark to build the Prairie Parkway though his district. The earmark would significantly raise the price of land that Hastert had recently purchased through a trust that was not properly disclosed in his personal financial disclosure statements.

Fall, 2005: Hastert’s office is warned of inappropriate e-mails sent by Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fl., to underage male pages.

November, 2005: Rep. Don Sherwood, R-Pa., settles out of court with his former mistress on charges that he choked her. Sherwood continues to serve in the House.

December, 2005: Hastert and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist sneak language into a Defense Department spending conference report that would give “the Secretary of Health and Human Services the ability to suspend the ability of the public to file liability claims against vaccine manufacturers if he or she determines that there is an imminent threat of a pandemic viral outbreak.” The inserted language would be worth billions of dollars for foreign drug makers in the event of an outbreak.

March, 2006: Rep. Tom Reynolds, R-N.Y., tells Hastert directly about the inappropriate e-mails sent by Rep. Foley to underage pages.

May, 2006: Hastert launches an attack on the FBI for raiding the offices of Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., who is under investigation for accepting bribes and accused of hiding subpoenaed material in his congressional office. After demanding that the documents be immediately returned to Jefferson’s office Hastert reaches a deal with the FBI to have the documents reviewed by Jefferson and Justice Department officials.

Spring, 2006: Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, talks to Hastert about the inappropriate e-mails. Hastert assured Boehner that he would “take care of it.”

September, 2006: Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio, pleads guilty to accepting bribes from lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Ney has not been forced to resign by Hastert and the leadership and still retains his seat in the current Congress.

0 Comments

When the Rep. Mark Foley sexual predation scandal broke last week I thought that this would just be another sex scandal. The member resigns in disgrace, end of story. However, Foley’s Internet advances on teenage pages revealed an institutional corruption created by a leadership that favors protecting electoral majorities over protecting children from predators. The House leadership also is shown to have a disdain for pursuing investigations of any kind. This scandal continues to show that unethical behavior has not been pursued by the leadership for fear of losing their slim congressional majority.

This scandal erupted in a matter of days. You can’t say that the House leadership couldn’t have figured this out and dealt with this last year when ABC News took a couple of days to get to the bottom it. Matt Yglesias explains this point, “The difference is that when ABC News and others saw smoke, they went looking for fire. They investigated. When Hastert and co. saw smoke, by contrast, they decided to turn off the smoke detectors and hope the house didn’t burn down until after the midterms.” It is always possible that Speaker Hastert was too involved in other activities at the time to pay much attention to this festering problem of sexual predation. 

Snark aside, this disdain for investigating and desire to protect potentially unethical action by members has a history under Dennis Hastert. When Tom DeLay faced multiple admonishments from the House Ethics Committee and a potential indictment for his role in the Texas redistricting the House leadership did not attempt to solve the issues of his unethical and possibly criminal behavior. Instead they changed the rules to protect his leadership position and purged the Ethics Committee of members who had voted to admonish. Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio, is still holding office despite pleading guilty to accepting bribes. He has not been asked to resign.

Look at the initial reaction to the Jack Abramoff scandal. Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said in 2005, “From everything I’ve heard, again, from the comments and responding to those, is everything he’s done was according to the law.” Tom DeLay stated that Abramoff “has never been on my payroll.” Tony Rudy and Michael Scanlon were, however, on DeLay’s payroll. Only one committee in both houses of Congress, the Senate Indian Affairs Committee conducted an investigation into Jack Abramoff’s illegal activity prior to the super-lobbyist’s guilty plea.

The Foley case follows that exact same formula as these other scandals. Hastert and top House leadership members (Tom Reynolds and John Boehner) knew about allegations last year and did not pursue them. They also did not discuss the issues with minority Democrats on the page board and ABC reports that Democratic sponsored pages were not warned about Foley’s “friendly” behavior while Republican sponsored pages were. Now, shockingly, top Republicans and House leadership are trying to defend and deflect this scandal. White House press secretary Tony Snow has stated that these were “simply naughty e-mails,” the National Republican Congressional Committee has stated that they “would gladly accept Mr. Foley’s money [$2.7 million] or part of it to devote to House races,” and former Speaker Newt Gingrich claims that if Foley had been investigated last year the investigators would have been accused of “gay bashing”. 

It should be strongly noted that there is no current House investigation into the matter. Hastert is undertaking an internal review, but this is not a real investigation with members of the minority party involved. While the scandal has been referred to the House Ethics Committee no formal investigation has begun. In fact, the House, after spending a whopping 93 days working in Washington, is now out of session as congressmen have scurried back to their districts to campaign. Clearly, this scandal highlights an inability by the current House majority to police its own members and to conduct any kind of serious investigation (seriously, it took ABC two days to figure this one out).

Dennis Hastert ought to face much of the blame for his inaction and inattention to problems. Chuck Todd and John Mercurio of the Hotline explain Hastert’s lack of action perfectly, “Hastert is notoriously slow when encouraging a wounded member of his party to get going. From Tom DeLay to Bob Ney, Hastert never seems willing to push members into what needs to be done. Now, in all three recent cases (DeLay, Ney and Foley), the member eventually did the right thing — but at a politically painful pace.

Hastert, for better or worse, is an institutionalist. …he allows the system to work even when it appears the system doesn’t work very fast, and unfortunately for him, very well.”

0 Comments

Maybe no one else will find this amusing or ironic, but I certainly did. The Washington Post published a letter to the editor of mine yesterday, but didn’t post it online. It’s a little surprising that a paper with such a robust Web presence wouldn’t post online all the letters to the editor it prints on paper.

Here it is:

The Post correctly identifies pork-barrel spending "earmarks" as a major problem on Capitol Hill ["Pet Projects," editorial, July 5]. However, this issue is just one symptom of a much larger problem - the lack of transparency in Congress.

Under current ethics rules, Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) was able to effectively mask his dealings from the public by filing vague financial reports. It took Bill Allison, our investigative reporter, weeks to uncover the fact that the speaker was profiting from a secret land deal. Members of Congress ought to make full disclosure the rule, not the exception - including making their schedules public and putting all disclosure material online in an easily searchable format.

 The Toledo Blade weighed in with an editorial on the same subject earlier this week. 

0 Comments

I received the following email from Mr. J. Randall Evans, the attorney for House Speaker Dennis Hastert, on June 24. (The previous correspondence is, in chronological order, at the end of this post, then here and here. Sorry I didn’t get around to posting it back then–I was busy getting ready to get out of town, and at the time didn’t have and still don’t have much of a response to it, other than to say that we continue to stand by our story:

Dear Mr. Allison:

Rather than litigate this matter in emails, there is an appropriate place to do it. Please note that this was not a limited liability partnership. The type and amount of property was disclosed. The city and state was disclosed. Indeed, the percentage ownership was disclosed. This was not a personal property holding. Instead, it was a real property holding which was disclosed.

In sum, Speaker Hastert disclosed his ownership interest, including the type, amount, location, and even percentage. The descriptions were sufficient to permit your entity, as well as any other entity, to locate the legal documentation on record.

“Hiding” is thus a term disproven by the readily available information and documents which you have posted. You know it is inaccurate, false and misleading. Yet, you have confirmed that as of June 22, 2006, you stand by it. We will see if you can defend it.

Sincerely,

Randy Evans

0 Comments

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 9^th 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.

0 Comments

Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute and Roll Call gets all Howard Beale in his editorial today:

In all my years of watching Congress, I have never seen anything quite like what we have now. It may be a cliché, and it may be a partisan attack term, but it is also true: There is a culture of corruption across Capitol Hill.

It still does not encompass the majority of Members and staffers, most of whom come here to do the right thing and to stay on the path. It may be true that the numbers of offenders, at least those directly breaking the law, are still roughly the same as in other comparable peer groups.

But the problem is palpably worse. While there is plenty of illegality here — and I believe a wave of indictments will hit in the coming months — it is not what is illegal that is the outrage, to use the old phrase, but rather what is legal.

Ornstein goes on to list the honest graft through earmarking of [sw: Ken Calvert] (R-Calif.), [sw: Gary Miller] (R-Calif.), and [sw: Dennis Hastert] (R-Ill.) and the abuses of campaign contributions by Vito Fossella as recent examples of this corruption.

There simply is no ethical compass here. The fact that Hastert was responsible for the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre of the House ethics committee makes his own real estate actions even more wrongheaded.

I don’t want Members of Congress and staffers to live ascetic or penurious lives. Lawmakers (and judges for that matter) ought to be paid at least as much as second-year associates in big law firms. (Currently they are not.)

Still, when I look at the eagerness of Members to score big perks from their lobbyist friends and to find ways to make big bucks by transactions that are related to their behavior inside Congress, I cannot find any justification in the large pay gap with their peers.

Illegal or not, much of this behavior is unethical and repugnant. It underscores the deep need for a real package of ethics, earmarking and lobbying reforms—which in turn underscores the shameful and pathetic behavior of the leaders in both chambers who have failed to act and who are trying to sneak through a sham bill. They hope journalists will tire of these stories and that voters won’t notice. I hope they are wrong.

“I want you to get up right now, sit up, go to your windows, open them and stick your head out and yell - ‘I’m as mad as hell and I’m not going to take this anymore!’ Things have got to change. But first, you’ve gotta get mad!”

Amen.

0 Comments