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
-
Rangel Out: The Particulars
Rep. Charlie Rangel temporarily resigned his chairmanship of the House Ways & Means Committee pending the completion of various ethics probes into his personal finances and other activities. (For a previous Sunlight Foundation exposé on Rangel’s financial disclosures see here.) Aside from the political repercussions that are being discussed there are a variety of other lines of inquiry that Rangel’s troubles have exposed. One of the most important is who will succeed him as chair of the House’s tax-writing panel.
Next in line in seniority is Rep. Pete Stark of California. Stark was recently subjected to an Ethics Committee investigation and, while cleared by the committee of charges that he inappropriately received a tax break on his Maryland home, the congressman does not come across nearly as well according to the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE), an independent ethics body that recommends investigations to the Ethics Committee.
When the Office of Congressional Ethics staff came to Stark’s second-floor Cannon office in July 2009, investigators noticed a video camera recording — but Stark had not informed the interviewers that he had the camera running. (Continue reading…)
-
Congress Should Make All Ethics Documents Available Online
An article in today’s Washington Post on the limits of conflict-of-interest rules laments that “the ethics system on Capitol Hill requires little more than annual public disclosure of financial assets and transactions.” When we surveyed the ethics filings required of U.S. Representatives and their staff members, we reached two additional conclusions:
(1) Many ethics filings are required to be publicly reported, but are not available online
(2) Many ethics filings are not publicly reported at all
At a minimum, the House should publish a compilation of reports and statements required by Members of Congress, officers, and employees, like the Senate does [PDF]. (Of course, the Senate should publish their compilation online. See our list of Senate disclosures.) The House and Senate should make all of their reports available online, in real time, and in machine readable format. When there are privacy implications of making information available, such as the inclusion of home addresses and social security numbers, that information should be redacted, of course.
In the Internet age, there’s no good reason to have documents available only in a room at Capitol Hill. The House has made some progress, for example, publishing its Statement of Disbursements of the House online, but there’s more that both chambers should do. (Continue reading…)
-
On the House Ethics Committee Leak
Last week, the cable news networks were blanketing their shows with stories about the leaking of a report from the House Ethics Committtee detailing the nearly 30 lawmakers under investigation by the committee. Despite all of the bombast of cable news anchors over the investigations, the totality of the leak is less than meets the eye. Seventeen out of the twenty-nine lawmakers investigated by the committee have already been reported on and a number more had been connected to investigations previously, but their investigation had not previously been reported. In total, only seven investigations were released that were previously unreported, mostly for what would be minor infractions. This amounts to a pretty small amount of unknown investigations for what has turned into a big story.
Importantly, as many are highlighting, the leaked report does show that the Ethics Committee is doing its job. For years, the committee has taken heat for failing to investigate lawmakers and slow-walking those investigations when it does. Despite early clashes, it appear that the new, independent Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) has prompted the committee to investigate and review a number of cases regarding potential ethical misconduct by lawmakers. This is a positive development, however, the leaking may cause problems as many lawmakers are now associated with ethical problems despite the fact that they have not had a full hearing and could well find these ethics complaints dismissed.
On the actual investigations, the biggest information from the leak is that half of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee is under investigation for allegedly trading earmarks for campaign contributions. Previously, the public was aware that federal investigators and the committee were likely looking at Reps. John Murtha, Pete Visclosky and Jim Moran. Now we know that the committee is investigating those three lawmakers plus Reps. Bill Young, Marcy Kaptur, Norm Dicks and Todd Tiahrt. Aside from the probe of Rep. Charlie Rangel, this investigation involves the most serious allegations and could cause trouble for this bipartisan cast of lawmakers. Furthermore, it continues to show that the appropriations process, particularly for defense spending, is a failed process. This is now the third major investigation into defense appropriations in the past five years. Previously, Rep. Duke Cunningham was sentenced to prison for trading earmarks and appropriations for goodies and Rep. Jerry Lewis has been the subject of a similar federal investigation.
The other investigations involve four lawmakers probed for improperly receiving a tax break on their homes in Maryland or the District of Columbia; North Carolina Rep. Heath Shuler is under investigation for a land swap deal; Florida Rep. Connie Mack is under investigation in connection to an earmark for Coconut Road that was submitted by Rep. Don Young; Rep. Joe Barton was under investigation for gifts given to a non-profit that he operates by companies with business before his committee, but he has since been exonerated. All the other lawmakers under investigation have been previously publicly reported.
-
Dodd, Conrad Cleared of Ethics Violations In Countrywide VIP Case
The Senate Ethics Committee released two letters (Dodd, Conrad) today clearing Sens. Chris Dodd and Kent Conrad of ethics violations in a case where both senators were members of a Countrywide “VIP” loan program. These letters concluded a year-long investigation into the “VIP” program and the loans the senators received.
The Committee found that the two senators did not violate Senate ethics rules prohibiting members from accepting outside gifts. The rule in question does not cover “loans from banks and other financial institutions on terms generally available to the public.” The committee also ruled that while the “VIP” loans did offer “quicker, more efficient loan processing and some discounts,” the discounts provided “were not the best deals that were available at Countrywide or in the marketplace at large.”
The senators did receive a chiding for not exhibiting care in their dealings with Countrywide. The Committee told both senators that they “should have excercised more vigilance in [their] dealings with Countrywide in order to avoid the appearance that [they] were receiving preferential treatment based on [their] status as Senator[s].”
In response to the investigation that Committee declared that it should have issued guidance on the receipt of loans and the involvement of senators in special loan programs. The Committee expects to issue a guidance to members in the future.
The organization that filed the initial ethics complaint, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), stated in a blog post that this amounts to “battered wife” syndrome.
“Like a battered woman who explains she brought the beating on herself, the committee faulted itself for failing to ‘provide more guidance to the Senate community about issues surrounding mortgage negotiations.’ Over a year has passed since CREW filed its complaint and the committee became aware of this issue. Now would be a good time for the committee to start proactively providing its promised advice.”
The Ethics Committee could also review legislation that has been introduced requiring limited disclosure of home loan information on personal financial disclosure forms (S. 1632).
-
Local Sunlight Spotlight
Triad Watch, from North Carolina, has great posts about the Mayor of Greensboro and the County Commissioner being offered free rides from North Carolina to Washington D.C. from a local developer. Triad Watch and another blog question how ethical this trip is. In response the trip was postponed when it was deemed to violate laws regarding gifts to elected officials.
Ed Cone writes today that local elected officials are flying to Washington D.C. to meet with our elected federal officials on securing federal money for a redevelopment project which the News & Record talked about CLICKHERE.
Here is the part of the post that needs to get a closer look and scrutiny, Ed Cone writes this,”The group will be flown to DC at no tax-payer expense by developer Roy Carroll, says Johnson.” Here is the post CLICKHERE
We have a local developer in Roy Carroll who also has a local Political Action Committee call “North Carolinians for Leadership in Government ” giving free airplane rides to local elected politicians in Mayor Johnson and Guilford County Commissioner Skip Alston.
Is it ethical and or legal for a local developer who already got tax incentives from both the greensboro city council and guilford county commissioners flying local elected officials to Washington D.C. ?
How will Roy Carroll report this on his political action committee?
These are some of the questions that need to be answered or talked about.
-
Is it really worth it?
Last week, the House Ethics Committee confirmed that they were investigating two Caribbean trips, in 2007 and 2008, taken by a number of lawmakers, all members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), that may have violated House rules forbidding lawmakers from accepting corporate funded travel. The Committee empaneled a subcommittee to investigate and appointed G.K. Butterfield, a CBC member and participant in a similar Caribbean trip in 2005, as the chairman of the investigation.
Unlike the 2007 and 2008 trips, Butterfield’s visit to the Caribbean did not violate House rules, as the rules forbidding corporate sponsored travel were not passed until 2007 as part of a broad ethics bill. However, considering that the CBC is openly opposing this investigation and actively trying to reverse the rule that was broken by the Caribbean trip attendees, Butterfield appears to be in a fairly conflicted situation. While he has stated that “he would step down or recuse himself if he felt conflicted at any time during the investigation,” I think it’s fair to say that his personal relationships with the lawmakers who are under investigation is grounds enough for recusal. In any judicial setting — whether a judge or jury — there would be no question that a person in Butterfield’s position would not be allowed to hear this case.
This is just another example of the need for a more independent ethics body to enforce the rules of Congress. It’s getting tiring writing these posts about how the ethics process doesn’t work. Can’t you guys just get it right?
-
Cry Me A River
Call the wahmbulance, some congressmen are complaining about being investigated.Members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) are organizing a working group to gut new ethics rules that created the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE). The OCE was created as a semi-independent investigative body that could sift through ethics complaints and decide which ones merited investigation or review by the House Ethics Committee.
The CBC is upset that the OCE may be investigating a trip taken by some CBC members to the Caribbean that may have violated House rules preventing lawmakers from going on travel sponsored by corporations.
According to The Hill, a source states, “We might need to revisit that law,” regarding the OCE. Another aide to a CBC member says, “In an environment where there’s allegations of clear criminality, investigating a trip to a Caribbean island is a bit odd … What’s the charge, that they spent too much time at the pool? That’s ridiculous.”
Well… What’s ridiculous is that this trip may have violated House rules and now you’re pretending like the investigation is about nothing but pool-side, pina colada sipping.
There are House rules that prevent lawmakers from going on travel sponsored by corporations. These rules were passed in the wake of the Abramoff scandal to prevent Scottish golfing trips and other outrages that had gone on for too long. The convention that CBC members were attending, according to photographs and independent accounts, contained banners of corporate sponsors and speeches by CBC members thanking corporate sponsors. That’s against the House rules.
While there might not be direct criminality involved, lawmakers can’t just violate the House rules. At least they shouldn’t be able to. And if you think that you should be able to, then please leave my city.
-
Ethics Link Line-Up
The party may be over, but the investigation is just beginning. The House Ethics Committee confirms that it is investigating lawmakers involved in the PMA Group contributions-cum-earmarks scandal embroiling the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.
Lawmakers just filed their personal financial disclosures and we’re already seeing problems. Rep. Marion Berry under reported the value of property he owns in here in Washington. Sen. Chris Dodd, facing serious questions about his personal finances, asked for a 90-day extension to file his report. Nearly one-in-five senators were like Dodd and could not file their report on time. This included serial late-filer Sen. Bob Corker. Has this guy ever filed a report on time?
The Hill reports on one of those personal financial disclosures, those of Rep. Don Young. Apparently, Young has spent $1.3 million defending himself in an investigation into his relationship with the oil services company from Hades, VECO. Has there ever been one company that got so many politicians sent to jail or placed under investigation?
-
WhiteHouse.gov Ethics Page is Alive
As President Obama launched the new WhiteHouse.gov back in January, many were concerned when a particular issue page, “Ethics,” went blank. It stayed blank for a little over four months, but it now finally hosts a list of executive memorandum, executive orders, and relevant blog posts regarding the topic. The only thing this page is missing, which other issue pages have, is what the President plans to do on the subject in the future.
-
Ethics Committee to “Investigate” Burris
So, the Senate Ethics Committee is going to investigate Sen. Roland Burris for his admission that he sought to raise money for the defrocked former Governor of Illinois Rod Blagojevich as he was seeking appointment to the state’s open Senate seat. The Ethics Committee is, as most know, a black hole where investigations go to die. Anyone remember that Ethics investigation into Sen. Ted Stevens? That’s right, it never happened.
The whole ethics process in Congress is a joke. Outside observers consistently declare that the process is worthless and appears dead, while lawmakers continue to insist that the ethics process is alive and well. It’s a running gag in Washington. In fact, it’s exactly like this:
While the Ethics Committee continues “pining for the fjords,” I’ll be waiting for the state’s attorney investigation into Burris’ alleged perjury and not the investigation of the late Ethics Committee.
