The new rules Congress passed last year requiring the disclosure of expense-paid trips members and their staff receive have sharply cut the number of free trips they have accepted. According to a short piece by Alex Knott at CQ, members of the 110^th Congress and their staff have accepted a little more than $3 million in free trips, as opposed to $7.5 million accepted by the 108^th Congress, a cut of more than half over the four years. Last year, Congress passed the new rules in the wake of the Jack Abramoff scandal, where it was revealed that lobbyists were showering lawmakers with lavish gifts and junkets. By the way, Abramoff, who is serving a six-year sentence for a fraudulent casino deal, is to be sentenced today by a federal judge where he faces an additional 11-year sentence for corrupting Congress.

CQ lists the lawmakers who have accepted the most money in free travel so far in this Congress:

- Rep. Susan A. Davis, Calif., $55,765

- Sen. Richard G. Lugar, Ind., $53,222

- Rep. Mike Ferguson, N.J., $51,886

- Rep. Russ Carnahan, Mo., $49,978

- Rep. Mark Souder, Ind., $49,750

- Rep. George Miller, Calif., $47,625

- Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., Wis., $44,359

- Rep. Rick Boucher, Va., $42,219

- Rep. Howard L. Berman, Calif., $41,230

- Rep. Lloyd Doggett, Texas, $41,184

Center for Responsive Politics’ Congressional Travel database allows users to search all the trips taken by member of Congress, sponsors, industry, trip destination (both city and foreign country) and other fun data.

0 Comments

The controversy over the FBI raid of Rep. William Jefferson’s (D-LA) congressional office continued today despite efforts by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist’s (R-TN) to put it to rest over the weekend. Frist, who was on "Fox New Sunday", stated about the FBI, "I don’t think it abused separation of powers … I think there’s allegations of criminal activity, and the American people need to have the law enforced." House Judiciary Committee James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) feels differently and today he held a hearing titled "Reckless Justice: Did the Saturday Night Raid of Congress Trample the Constitution?" Sensenbrenner and the ranking Democrat John Conyers (D-MI) agreed that the raid was out of bounds with the chairman saying, "It is about the ability of the Congress to be able to do its job free of coercion from the executive branch." Conyers stated, "We’ve never learned why the member in question was not permitted to have his attorneys present while his offices were searched for some 18 hours."

Personally, I believe that this was an extraordinary case, but was not conducted "out of bounds". The affidavit against Jefferson was unbelievably detailed, showing an almost unparalleled level of corruption by an elected official. The FBI was carrying out a legally obtained warrant to search Jefferson’s office in relation to activities that did not include any legislative action nor any activity directly related to his elected role. I don’t think that members can live above the law just because they have been chosen by the people of their district or state to represent them. That is essentially the argument of people who are against the raid: that members may operate their congressional office as though it were a Cayman Islands bank account (hat tip to Bill Allison). This is what Josh Marshall is getting at when he states his support of the raid:

If the Feds can raid a congressman’s house, it’s not clear to me why they can’t raid his office. Sure, there’s some room for prudential restraint and a respect for comity. But if the DOJ can’t search a congressman’s office, then the power to investigate and prosecute close to falls apart since that creates a safe harbor for incriminating information. Any serious claim that the functioning of Congress falls outside the bounds of the DOJ would apply to acts as well as work product. And that means that any bribery prosecution is impossible since official acts are an element of the crime.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) makes the same point in issuing his support for the raid and surprise at the bipartisan reaction against the raid:

I understand that the speech and debate clause is in the Constitution. It is there because Queen Elizabeth I and King James I were disrespectful of Parliament. It ought to be, in my judgment, construed narrowly. It should not be in any way interpreted as meaning that we as Members of Congress have legal protections superior to those of the average citizen.

If you want to read a selection of arguments made by law professors Josh has a number of links here (pro and con).

0 Comments

It’s against the law to solicit a trip or a gift of any value if you are a member of Congress. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) is asking the Department of Justice to open an investigation into Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) to determine whether the congressman “violated federal law by soliciting a trip to Germany and Liechtenstein from the International Management and Development Institute (IMDI).”

0 Comments