Democrats Main Focus Of Congressional Ethics Probe

Bad news for Democrats in revelation of ethics probes



After years of criticism that congressional lawmakers were reluctant to investigate their colleagues, the disclosure in recent days of a sensitive document from the House ethics committee offers the contradictory portrait of a panel actively pursuing a range of probes even as Democrats under scrutiny remain in positions of power.

The 22-page document revealed that the ethics committee, as of late July, was looking into the activities of at least 19 lawmakers, including reviews of home mortgages and interviews about corporate-backed trips for members of Congress to Caribbean resorts. Combined with the inquiries being conducted by a new ethics office, the document showed a far more robust set of investigations than previously revealed.

But the document also brings potential political peril for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), whose party claimed the majority in November 2006 after she promised to "drain the swamp" of corruption on Capitol Hill. Two and a half years into Pelosi's reign, more than 25 Democrats have been targeted for ethics reviews by the two ethics bodies, while just seven Republicans appeared to be under scrutiny, according to the document.

Republicans have criticized Pelosi for declining to take away power from close allies such as Reps. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) and John P. Murtha (D-Pa.). Both are powerful chairmen who were previously known to be under investigation, but the new document offered greater detail about those probes.

Rangel said in an interview he was interviewed by the ethics committee about a trip he took to a Caribbean resort that may have been underwritten by corporate interests. Such privately financed trips were forbidden under rules Pelosi pushed shortly after taking over in 2007. Rangel said the interview did not cover other allegations about his personal finances.

Release of the document, which was provided to The Washington Post by a source with no connection to the ethics committee or Congress, provided an unexpected window into the inner workings of the committee, which has operated in secrecy for decades.

The scope of its activities provided a counterpoint to critics who have questioned whether the panel -- made up of six Democrats, six Republicans and a staff of fewer than 10 lawyers -- has taken its work seriously. Ethics watchdogs, who have spent more than a decade pummeling the House and Senate ethics committees, offered rare praise for the House panel and the new Office of Congressional Ethics.

"Both groups are seriously pursuing their ethics responsibilities at this stage," six groups said in a joint statement.

But the revelations have also triggered new sensitivities for the ethics committee, which is formally known as the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. Some lawyers have privately wondered whether the disclosures could damage cases the committee was pursuing. And lawmakers questioned the panel's professionalism for allowing a now-dismissed junior staffer to take the document home and accidentally load it onto a computer that was using peer-to-peer technology, opening all her files to everyone logged into that network.

The leaders of the ethics committee, Reps. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) and Jo Bonner (R-Ala.) alerted colleagues Thursday evening and cautioned that some newly revealed cases could just be cursory reviews by staff members. However, the nearly three dozen cases in the confidential report come under the heading "Investigative Issues of Significance."

Watchdog work

The document covered every activity undertaken by the ethics committee staff for the week of July 27, revealing a hefty workload ranging from complex legal work to mundane requests from congressional staff. One lawyer, for example, fielded 21 phone calls from aides seeking guidance on House rules, reviewed 43 travel requests for staff members or lawmakers hoping to be in sync with chamber rules and reviewed seven financial disclosure forms.

A senior aide to House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) asked whether a lawmaker and aide, while visiting a private ranch on a fact-finding trip, could accept horseback rides from the owner so they could traverse the massive ranch. That was ap proved by a committee lawyer.

The chief of staff for Rep. Bruce Braley (D-Iowa) asked if it was permissible to use official congressional e-mail to alert citizens outside his eastern Iowa district to lobby other members of Congress on a particular issue. Staff rejected this request, saying it would break the "prohibition on members conducting and assisting outside lobbying of Congress."

Committee inquiries rarely become public, only at the most serious stages. Some reprimands are private. Only in recent years has the committee published biannual reports documenting the number of ongoing investigations.

The system is meant to protect innocent lawmakers from the political fallout of being identified as under investigation in cases that are not substantial, according to Robert Walker, a former counsel for the House and Senate ethics committees. He rejected criticism that the panel did not conduct enough inquiries.

"The House ethics committee has historically engaged in a number of ongoing investigations on a regular basis. Many groups may not be willing to acknowledge that, but they did occur," he said.

A new ethics enforcer

Most watchdog groups credited a spike in committee activity to the Office of Congressional Ethics, a semi-independent body that conducts investigations and makes recommendations to the full ethics committee. Only the committee retains the power to punish a lawmaker.

The OCE's creation came after a more than yearlong negotiation between Pelosi and many Democrats and Republicans who objected to a new ethics body.

Now in its first year of existence, the OCE operates with a mandate of speedy probes and public dissemination of information. It is run by a former federal prosecutor who helped send Enron executives to prison and a former Air Force prosecutor who tried terrorists.

The newly released document hints at the uneasy coexistence of the ethics committee and OCE. That relationship hit a bump last week after the committee dismissed a potential case referred from the ethics office.

OCE investigators had found that a Republican lawmaker probably broke rules by inviting his wife's business partner to testify at a hearing, but the ethics committee unanimously dismissed the case and rebuked the OCE for misunderstanding House rules.

The most persistent critics of the ethics committee said the decision was more evidence of lawmakers declining to police their colleagues. But they also expressed mixed emotions after release of the document.

"We were pleasantly surprised to learn the ethics committee is investigating so many members of Congress, but starting an investigation isn't enough. The real question is whether any of the members under investigation will ever be held accountable for their conduct," said Melanie Sloan, founder of the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.





Bob Hall: Dems were not exonerated


Bob Hall, the director of the nonprofit organization Democracy North Carolina, a watchdog over government in general and elections in particular, is one of the reasons the State Board of Elections held a series of hearings last week that wound up with the board penalizing former Gov. Mike Easley's campaign $100,000 (a $60,000 forfeiture for air flights that were not reported and a $40,000 fine for the cost of the board's investigation) and sending evidence it received to the Wake District Attorney's office to determine whether criminal charges should be pursued.

Hall had filed a complaint with the board arguing that a review of campaign finance disclosure reports showed evidence of a plan to raise contributions beyond the legal amount from individual contributors to Easley's campaign by channeling them through the state party.

The board also ordered the State Democratic Party to forfeit $9,000 in contributions that that the Easley campaign had sought. The contributions were to be sent to the party and earmarked for Easley's use, according to testimony. The State Democratic Party took note of the fact that the State Board of Elections did not single out the party for any wrongdoing, and said that amounted to the board's exoneration of the party.

Not so fast, says Hall. In a Saturday afternoon e-mail to reporters and editors at the News & Observer and the Observer, Hall said the evidence made it clear there was "sufficient evidence" to show that the scheme worked as planned -- and that the Easley committee, two contributors and the party had violated state law. He also took issue Monday with a line in an Observer editorial that said the board did not find the Democratic Party at fault.

Here’s what he said Saturday:

I don’t think it’s right to say the State Board of Elections cleared the Democratic Party of all wrongdoing. The unanimous vote to order the Party to forfeit $9,000 resulted from concluding that there was sufficient evidence to show that donations had been solicited for Easley’s benefit, made payable to the Party, and used to pay expenses for the Easley campaign – i.e., that the donor, Easley Committee, and Democratic Party were all involved in a type of earmarking that violates NCGS 163-278.14(a): “No individual, political committee, or other entity shall make any contribution anonymously or in the name of another. No candidate, political committee, referendum committee, political party, or treasurer shall knowingly accept any contribution made by any individual or person in the name of another individual or person or made anonymously.”

The statute of limitations has expired on misdemeanor charges, but not on a civil penalty. The Board decided that it had evidence regarding the donations from Lanny Wilson and Nick Garrett, but testimony did not support charges involving other donations. The penalty could not have been assessed unless there was evidence the Party participated in the earmarking scheme for the Wilson and Garrett donations. I’m not asking you to write more about all this, except that in your Correction section, I think it would be good to say that beyond two cases of illegal earmarking involving the Wilson and Garrett donations, the Party was cleared of any further wrongdoing.

That way, the clarification will appear when somebody retrieves the original story some months from now. What do you say?

BTW, here’s how Fayetteville Observer reports it: “The board ordered the state Democratic Party to forfeit $9,000 in campaign funds for two donations that were solicited by Easley's campaign committee. Easley supporters Nick Garrett and Lanny Wilson, both of Wilmington, testified that they gave the Democratic Party donations above the $4,000 individual campaign limit with the understanding that the money would be returned to Easley's committee. The board ruled that the party violated campaign finance laws because a $4,000 check from Garrett and a $5,000 check from Wilson had been earmarked for the Easley committee.”

And here’s what he said Monday:

Maybe quoting the Board’s adopted motion itself will be helpful, which I have below. I see CO’s weekend editorial also says “the board did not find the party at fault,” which I’m sure delights party’s spinners. Maybe a correction that will ride with that editorial into Google-land would be appropriate. Illegal earmarking includes the party spending the money for the earmarked candidate.

Leake motion, unanimously adopted, about the 2 cases of earmarking ended with him saying “. . . the sum of $9,000 and, as there has not been sufficient evidence shown of any OTHER violations of North Carolina law on the part of the North Carolina Democratic Party, that the remainder of the complaint as to that entity be dismissed.”

See 1:38 into video of his motion at: http://www.wral.com/news/video/6314210/





DSS hires politically-connected during "Freeze"

While Mecklenburg County is cutting some jobs, the county's Department of Social Services has been hiring.

The NewsChannel 36 I-Team discovered DSS has hired 30-40 positions, many of them managers and several filled with candidates who have political connections.

The DSS hiring freeze was in effect when Mary E. Wilson joined the department as director last July. But in the name of reorganizing the department, DSS has hired dozens of new employees, including the daughter of Charlotte's police chief, the daughter of a Superior Court judge and the wife of a city councilman who is running for mayor.

DSS hired Samara Foxx, the wife of at-large councilman and mayoral candidate Anthony Foxx, last July.

Her salary as Division Director II was $100,000 a year.

Foxx's hiring raised questions among some DSS staffers since the position was posted on July 17 and taken down the very next day.

For months, the I-Team has asked DSS in writing for public records showing when the job was posted. At first a department spokeswoman told us that legal counsel had advised her the records were confidential personnel records. After our repeated requests for only the public portion of the records, DSS sent us a two-page letter detailing the job posting.

The letter says in part, "The creation of Ms. Foxx's position was an initial step in the re-organization of DSS, which was approved by the county's executive team."

Charlotte-Meck. County Commissioners Chair Jennifer Roberts told us by phone from Washington, "I did not realize that opening was posted for such a short period of time. It's concerning. We pride ourselves on being open, transparent, equal and fair. I can't imagine why the posting period would not be available to reporters."

After DSS Director Mary E. Wilson gave Samara Foxx the job, Wilson's husband Cornell donated $4,000 -- the legal maximum -- to Anthony Foxx's mayoral campaign.

Foxx Campaign Manager Bruce Clark said Wilson and Foxx had worked together in the past but declined comment on the hiring, saying it was a county decision.

Foxx is not the only person with political connections to be hired by DSS since the "hiring freeze" went into effect.

Public records show DSS hired Hollye Monroe, the daughter of CMPD Police Chief Rodney Monroe, on Jan. 14 as a Management Analyst. Her salary: $46,613.60 per year. Our phone messages to Monroe's public information officer and chief of staff were not returned.

DSS also hired Tracey Evans, the daughter of Superior Court Judge Yvonne Mims-Evans, on Feb. 11 as a Social Services Manager at a salary of $57,380.95 per year. Judge Mims-Evans told us in a brief telephone interview that she had nothing to do with the hire.

County Manager Harry Jones e-mailed us a two-line response saying, "These individuals were hired within our policies and without regard to who their parents or spouses are."

Neither Jones nor DSS Director Mary E. Wilson responded to our requests for an on-camera interview.

But County Commissioner Bill James says the hiring smacks of political patronage and in his words "just smells bad." Commissioner James says the hiring should be investigated.



View Larger Map


Sources: Washington Post, Wikipedia, McClatchy Newspapers, Charlotte Observer, WCNC, WRAL, Charmeck.org, Google Maps