The ongoing federal investigation of Sen. Ted Stevens is exploring the Alaska lawmakers pattern, thoroughly documented by Chuck Neubauer, Judy Pasternak and Richard T. Cooper of the Los Angeles Times, of earmarking taxpayer dollars to organizations (among them Alaskan seafood producers) that hired Stevens’ son, Ben, as a consultant. Matt Apuzzo of the Associated Press has the latest developments:

WASHINGTON - Federal authorities investigating Sen. Ted Stevens are trolling the Alaska fishing industry for evidence of whether the powerful Republican pushed seafood legislation that benefited his lobbyist son…

Industry officials and attorneys involved in the case, who spoke on condition of anonymity because authorities have told them not to discuss the probe, said investigators are asking about federal legislation that directly or indirectly aided the senator’s son, Ben, who is a state lobbyist and politician.

The legislation was passed as earmarks, brief spending items that lawmakers tack onto bills to steer federal money to pet projects. Ted Stevens, an unapologetic user of earmarks, is the biggest champion for Alaska’s $2 billion-a-year seafood industry.

Details of the earmarks under investigation–including what Ben Stevens did (or didn’t do) for his fees–are below the fold; it’s worth noting that because Stevens fils was a state lawmaker, most of these payments were made public on his personal financial disclosure. A bunch of Ben Stevens’ forms are available from the Center for Public Integrity, here–just scroll down toward the bottom of the page.

By the way, hat tip to Cap’n Ed, who makes some good points, not least of which:

Regardless of whether the FBI can prove corruption, these cases demonstrate clearly that pork corrodes the process of government. When our elected representatives place themselves in positions to have themselves or their families directly benefit from their legislative activities, it becomes a gross conflict of interest.

But I think I have the better headline…

In any case, here’s the rundown from Matt Apuzzo of AP…

_A $100 million federal loan program approved in 2000 to buy out Alaska crab boats, trim the size of the fleet and boost prices. The Bering Sea Crab Effort Reduction Fund, an industry group that supported the buyout program, hired Ben Stevens’ company, Advance North, as a consultant.

_A $30 million earmark Ted Stevens used to create the Alaska Fisheries Marketing Board, which provided federal money to promote Alaska seafood. Ben Stevens was the board’s first chairman and approved grants to companies including those paying him consulting fees, state financial disclosure reports show.

_A $50 million loan program, like the crab buyback, seeking to trim the Alaska salmon fleet in 2004. The Southeast Alaska Seiners Association, a salmon fishing organization, hired Advance North to help push the deal. Ben Stevens is not a federal lobbyist and the salmon fishing group said his business partner, Trevor McCabe, did the lobbying.

But Victor Smith, a fisherman and critic of Ben Stevens, gave the FBI a taped phone conversation that he said proves otherwise. In the 2005 conversation, Smith called the seiners group’s board member Bryan Benkman to discuss why funding was stuck in the federal bureaucracy even after the earmark passed.

Both men expressed disappointment in Ben Stevens and Smith asked why he was hired. Benkman replied that the younger Stevens recalled his success getting the crab buyback passed and pitched himself as a conduit to his father.

“He said, ‘Hey, see I’ve got a program. You know, I’ve got this one to my credit. Hire me, you know, I’ll get Dad to fund you guys, too,” Benkman said.

_A 2003 earmark that gave exclusive pollock fishing rights to Alaska natives in the far-flung Aleutian community of Adak. That meant millions of dollars for Adak Fisheries to manage the catch of pollock, the lucrative whitefish commonly used in fishsticks and fish sandwiches.

The company paid Ben Stevens $295,000 between 2000 and 2004, according to state financial disclosure reports. When the earmark went through, Ben Stevens also secretly held an option to buy into Adak Fisheries.

0 Comments

The Washington Post reports on a bipartisan effort in the House to ban a practice that Sunlight and citizen journalists investigated in 2006: How many members of Congress were using campaign contributions to pay their spouses, in essence putting special interest money into the family budget?

In the latest ripple of an ethics spat gripping Congress, the House yesterday passed a bipartisan bill that bans lawmakers from paying their spouses for campaign work.

The measure, passed on a voice vote, was sponsored by Reps. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) and Michael N. Castle (R-Del.). It would not bar other family members from working on a lawmaker’s campaign but would require disclosure.

Currently, spouses can work for campaigns provided that they charge fair market value for their services. The measure still has to passed by the Senate.

The meat of the bill is contained in these passages:

(1) PROHIBITING COMPENSATION OF SPOUSES- Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, no authorized committee of a candidate or any other political committee established, maintained, or controlled by a candidate or an individual holding Federal office (other than a political committee of a political party) shall directly or indirectly compensate the spouse of the candidate or individual (as the case may be) for services provided to or on behalf of the committee.

(2) DISCLOSURE OF PAYMENTS TO SPOUSES AND IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBERS- In addition to any other information included in a report submitted under section 304 by a committee described in paragraph (1), the committee shall include in the report a separate statement of any payments, including direct or indirect compensation, made to the spouse or any immediate family member of the candidate or individual involved during the period covered by the report.

(3) IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBER DEFINED- In this subsection, the term `immediate family member’ means the son, daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, mother, father, brother, sister, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, or grandchild of the candidate or individual involved.

I find it a little odd that “indirectly compensate” isn’t defined — I guess that the Federal Election Commission will determine what that means (if you’re married to a UPS lobbyist, does that mean your campaign can’t ship via UPS?). In any case, here’s Govtrack’s page on the bill.

Just an observation, but I’ve always thought that of the two practices, lobbying by a spouse or immediate family member is potentially far more corrupting — there’s no requirement for a lobbying firm to pay fair market value for the services of a member’s spouse or son or daughter. (See here for one example….)

0 Comments

Robert Novak suggests in a column today one subject in divided Washington that gets bipartisan support:

[Sen. Harry] Reid is also working behind the scenes with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to undermine earmark transparency and prevent open debate on spending proposals…

…Reid is plotting to strip anti-earmark transparency from the final version of ethics legislation passed by the Senate and House, with tacit support from Republican senators and the GOP leadership.

I’m shocked. Also not surprised. Interestingly, Novak reports that the issue that’s rankling lawmakers is a provision that would “bar earmarks benefiting a senator’s family members.”

An effort by Sen. Tom Coburn to sink just such an earmark that Sen. Ben Nelson requested offers a fairly good reason of why need the rule:

Nelson’s current $7.5 million earmark for software helps 21st Century Systems Inc. (21CSI), which employs the senator’s son, Patrick Nelson, as its marketing director. The company gets 80 percent of its funds from federal grants, mostly through earmarks. With nine offices scattered among states represented by appropriators in Congress, the company has in recent years spent $1.1 million to lobby Congress and $160,000 in congressional campaign contributions. “As of April,” the Omaha World-Herald reported, “only one piece of [the company's] software has been used — to help guard a single Marine camp in Iraq — and it was no longer in use.”

In requesting the 21CSI earmark, Nelson did not disclose his son’s employment. “There’s no requirement that he disclose that,” a Nelson spokesman told this column. “But frankly, in this case, we didn’t disclose it because it’s so public.” An April 24 letter from Levin giving senators instructions on how to request an earmark made no mention of the “Reid amendment” that had been passed by the Senate three months earlier but that required only certification that no senator’s spouse would benefit from an earmark. Inclusion of Nelson’s son, however, would be required if the ethics bill provision passes.

We noted Coburn’s effort to investigate whether 21CSI used federal funds to lobby here.

0 Comments

In what looks like the most authoritative list to date, National Journal reporter Marisa Katz identified 33 Senators and 30 Representatives “who have lobbied or consulted on government relations at the federal or the state level in recent years” in the magazine’s March 31, 2007, issue. Regrettably, it doesn’t appear that the excellent story that goes with that finding, or the chart, is online at National Journal’s site.

Among Senators, Richard Lugar, R-Ind., Mark Pryor, D-Ark., Harry Reid, D-Nev., Pat Roberts, R-Kan., and Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, had two relatives with connections, while Rep. Bill Shuster, R-Pa., had two and Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., was the lone member of Congress to have three.

Hats off to Katz for doing the work. I’m really surprised I missed this when it came out…

0 Comments

While it’s a little odd see Dick Morris, the former hired gun political advisor of both Bill Clinton and Trent Lott, show an interest in congressional ethics, it’s worth noting that among the reforms he proposes (indeed, the top one on his list) is banning campaigns and Political Action Committees from hiring family members of members of Congress. Morris has a pretty long list that includes not just spouses, not just children, but also brothers, cousins, nephews and an in-law:

Those who have hired spouses and family members include: Reps. Richard Pombo (R-Calif.), wife and two brothers; Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), husband’s law firm; Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), wife and step-daughter; John Doolittle (R-Calif.), wife; Ralph Hall (R-Texas), daughter-in-law; Pete Stark (D-Calif.), wife; Buck McKeon (R-Calif.), wife; Ron Lewis (R-Ky.), wife; Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), wife; Jim Costa (D-Calif.), cousin; Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), wife; Dave Reichert (R-Wash.), nephew; Chris Cannon (R-Utah), three daughters; Lincoln Davis (D-Tenn.), sister-in-law and daughter; Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), wife; Tim Bishop (D-N.Y.), daughter; Bob Filner (D-Calif.), wife; J.D. Hayworth (R-Ariz.), wife; Bob Inglis (R-S.C.), wife; Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.), wife; Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.), wife; John Sweeney (R-N.Y.), wife; Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), wife; Ed Pastor (D-Ariz.), nephew; John Shadegg (R-Ariz.), son; and Howard Berman (D-Calif.), brother Michael’s political consulting firm; Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), son; and Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), son and daughter during vice presidential race; and ex-Reps. Bob Ney (R-Ohio), wife; and Tom DeLay (R-Texas), wife and daughter.

Worth clipping and saving. Number two on Morris’s list is banning family members from lobbying Congress, also a worthy idea. But I would add that there needs to be some kind of disclosure for adult children — which the stories about Rep. Silvestre Reye’s advocacy for a contractor that hired his children so richly demonstrate:

Reyes has been a key backer of the system and its contractor, International Microwave Corp. Shortly after its 1999 contract award, the firm hired Rebecca Reyes to serve as a liaison to what was then the Immigration and Naturalization Service. She ultimately became IMC’s vice president for contracts. IMC also hired her brother, Silvestre Reyes Jr., as a technician on the program, known as the Integrated Surveillance Intelligence System, or ISIS.

I wouldn’t object to any of the other items on Morris’ list, although I think all of them could go farther.

0 Comments

The basic research is done, and before I begin making the earnest effort to digest the raw results, let me first thank all who participated–especially Beezling, who topped his prolific performance on round one with an incredible turn on round two–he did 319 this time around, doing by far the bulk of the entries. Get that man a fedora and a press pass!

More information soon…

0 Comments

Nearly 7 p.m. Sunday, and we’re through 296 members and 41 states–pretty incredible. To all who’ve joined this effort, once again let me offer a heartfelt thank you.

Some preliminary numbers as we move toward the final leg, but first let me point out that these a). haven’t been verified and b). need to be looked at more closely to figure out what they mean. So keep those caveats in mind. Citizen journalists have tentatively identified $480,029 in campaign expenditures going from a House member’s campaign to a firms that employs that member’s spouse in the current election cycle. Citizen journalists have also tentatively found that organizations for which House members’ spouses work have landed a total of $2,788,663,441–that’s $2.7 billion–in federal contracts in 2005 (the last full year for which information is available) and $2,649,935,942–$2.6 billion–in federal grants in 2004 (again, the last year for which we have complete data).

What does this mean? I’m not sure. Maybe if you picked 296 names at random out of a phone book, you’d come up with similar figures for the companies they worked for. It’s the particulars here that count, and we’ll begin digging into them once we’re through phase one.

0 Comments

Wow. We’re a little past the four hour mark, and we’re through 24 states and 188 members. I’ll continue to keep an eye on progress tonight, but this has once again been an incredible effort. Thanks to all who are making round two as successful as the first go round!

0 Comments

It's your last chance to investigate the 109th Congress before Election Day! Who else besides Julie Doolittle has a company that works for her spouse's campaign? How many federal contractors employ spouses of members of Congress? Have nonprofits that receive part of their funding from congressional appropriations hired spouses of members? It's up to you to find out! Round Two of "Is Congress a Family Business" is now online! Thanks to our too modest Web design genius, it's still as slick and user friendly as round one. This time some of the information we're looking for will be more challenging to find, but if you follow the step-by-step instructions, you should be able to help investigate a member of Congress in less than five minutes! Once again we’re looking at the House of Representatives, this time investigating what I like to call the Sierra Dominion phenomenon—that of congressional spouses who work for a firm that in turn works for the member's campaign. Sierra Dominion Financial Resources is the name of the firm whose sole employee is the wife of Rep. John Doolittle, R-Calif., Julie Doolittle. Sierra Dominion Financial Services, has been paid more than $60,000 for “fundraising commissions” by Doolittle’s campaign since January 1, 2005. (That’s not all Sierra Dominion did, of course—it also took money from one of the lobbying firms Jack Abramoff worked for, Greenberg, Traurig, as well as fundraising commissions from a PAC associated with Doolittle—for more information, visit the authoritative Congresspedia entry here.) Our intrepid citizen journalists have already found 19 members who've paid their spouses more than $630,000 directly from campaign contributions. Now, using the excellent new financial disclosure database from the Center for Responsive Politics, we'll search CRP's campaign expenditure information for indirect payments from special interests to family budgets. As an added bonus, we’re also going to see find out whether spouses work for firms that get federal contracts or grants. Using FedSpending.org, the new database built by our friends at OMB Watch that tracks government contracts and grants, we'll see whether organizations that employ spouses of members of Congress are seeking federal funds. I’m not quite sure what we’ll find, but that’s part of the fun. Are members' spouses working for institutions that are seeking scarce federal grant dollars? Are companies with spouses of members of Congress on the payroll seeking federal contracts from executive branch agencies? This is the first step in finding out–and one of the first big research efforts using OMB Watch's cool new tool for government transparency. A quick note on the next step for this part of the project: We're going to try to find a way to open up the verification, reporting and writing process to citizen journalists as well as the front end research. We're hoping to offer new opportunities for more involved participation. So if you want to go beyond this opening round of research, we'd like to enlist your help for further research. The goal will be to take what we find, and find out more about it, and publish our findings. Remember—this is the last chance to investigate this Congress before the election. Have at it, and of course we hope you have some fun doing it!

0 Comments

Citizen journalists have now investigated 258 members of Congress, and tentatively identified a dozen spouses who’ve been cumulativel paid $455,539. Incredible. A huge thanks to all who’ve participated–whether you’ve done one, two or dozens. A special thanks to KCinDC, who’s been an indefatigable machine, and to VaAntiRepublican, who’s chipped in a couple of dozen.

And remember, this is only phase one of a multipronged investigation into family members of members of Congress who work in the political system as fundraisers, for political action committtees, or as lobbyists,

0 Comments