FANNIE MAE IS BADLY IN NEED OF REFORM & NEW LEADERSHIP MINUS CONGRESS' INTERVENTION (NO BAIL OUT)

FANNIE MAE IS BADLY IN NEED OF REFORM & NEW LEADERSHIP MINUS CONGRESS' INTERVENTION (NO BAIL OUT):

WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL INTERFERENCE, FANNIE MAE STAFF CAN NO LONGER USE POLITICS TO HURT HOMEOWNERS WHO VOTE OPPOSITE OF THEIR CHOSEN CANDIDATES.

WITHOUT CONGRESS' HELP, FANNIE MAE STAFF CAN NO LONGER STEAL HOMES WITH EQUITY FROM U.S. MILITARY VETERANS WHO VOTE OPPOSITE OF THEIR CHOSEN CANDIDATES.


Post Sources: American Banker, Forbes, Fox News, Youtube


********How next FHFA chief can reform Fannie, Freddie without Congress' help


The legislative stalemate over housing finance reform is likely to prolong the uncertain future for the government-sponsored enterprises. But it also illuminates the power of the next head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency.

With FHFA Director Mel Watt's term due to end in January, his successor — either a Senate-confirmed appointee or an interim chief — has substantial authority to set part of the path forward on GSE reform, including how far Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac expand their mission and the status of a common securitization platform shared by the two mortgage giants.

“Reforms can move forward without legislation,” said Anne Canfield, executive director of the Consumer Mortgage Coalition. “There are things that can be done administratively that would reduce the government’s exposure and risk to the GSEs and bring private capital into the marketplace, but in a little bit of a different way.”

That highlights the importance of whomever the Trump administration selects for the job. It could be someone who differs from Watt — an Obama appointee — in style and policy, who could opt to go as far as placing the mortgage giants into receivership.

“I don’t think we’re going to have legislative GSE reform anytime, but the day-to-day decisions they make, whether to approve a pilot or fund the Housing Trust Fund, these are significant decisions that will impact the trajectory of mortgage finance,” said Isaac Boltansky, the director of policy research at Compass Point.

During his tenure, Watt has appeared cautious about changing Fannie and Freddie's role in the absence of congressional reforms.

"I am well aware, and regularly express my belief, that conservatorship should never be viewed as permanent or as a desirable end state and that housing finance reform is necessary," Watt said in a 2014 policy speech early in his FHFA tenure. "However, Congress and the administration have the important job of deciding on housing finance reform legislation, not FHFA. Instead, our task is to continue to fulfill our statutory mandates, to execute our strategic plan and to manage the present status of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."

But observers said his successor could take advantage of the agency's powers to move in the direction of reducing the GSEs' role.

Before Watt arrived, the agency was run on an acting basis by Ed DeMarco, who had joined the agency in the Bush administration and was seen as more opposed to expanding Fannie and Freddie's reach.

“It depends on the person," said Canfield. "It really depends on who they select.”

Some candidates who have been mentioned as possible successors to Watt — including DeMarco himself along with retiring House Financial Services Chairman Jeb Hensarling — have been vocal about reducing the government’s role in the mortgage market.

In February, when Fannie requested a $3.7 billion draw from the Treasury, Hensarling harshly criticized giving the company any more bailout funds.

“Today’s announcement that Fannie Mae has once again run out of money to pay its own bills is the latest example of why we need to repeal the GSEs’ government charters once and for all," he said then in a statement, adding criticism later of Watt's handling of the companies' fiscal situation.

"The even more troubling aspect of the GSEs financial crisis is FHFA Director Mel Watt’s continued insistence to siphon taxpayer dollars to prop up payments to the Housing Trust Fund that the GSEs cannot afford to make," Hensarling said. "If the GSEs don’t have the money to pay their own bills, they should not be making optional payments to outside entities."

While Watt's term will end in early 2019, a pair of recent scandals facing the agency has led some to speculate he could leave sooner. Watt has been accused of sexually harassing an FHFA staffer and is reportedly under a separate investigation for attempting to weaken the oversight of the FHFA Office of Inspector General.

Before a new nominee is Senate-confirmed, the White House could appoint one of Watt’s three lieutenants to serve as acting director or appoint a temporary director under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act when Watt leaves.

“If there’s a prolonged period where we have an acting director … I think that it would be a slower decision-making process and more of a caretaker,” said Boltansky.

But Canfield disagreed, saying that the administrative decisions made by an acting director could depend on the person.

“I think the acting director can do quite a bit,” she said. “I would hope that they would get a permanent director in there but if they’re not able to do that, I think they can all move forward with an acting director.”

If the White House were to move quickly to nominate a successor to Watt, it would signal that the administration wants to move quickly to end conservatorship and implement reforms of the mortgage finance system, Keefe, Bruyette & Woods wrote in recent a research note.

“However, it is difficult to say what policy path the administration will pursue until we see what personnel it intends to insert at FHFA,” the company said.

Of all the actions a director could take, the most significant would be to put Fannie and Freddie into a receivership, which supporters claim would restructure the GSEs without burdening taxpayers.

Among the other decisions the next FHFA director could make would be to determine the courts of efforts to implement a common securitization platform, which would allow Fannie and Freddie to issue uniform mortgage-backed securities. The FHFA has pushed the second phase of the process to June 2019 — after Watt’s departure.

The director will also be at liberty to decide whether or not to continue Fannie's pilot Enterprise-Paid Mortgage Insurance program and Freddie's similar Integrated Mortgage Insurance pilot, which both debuted this year. Some have criticized the mortgage insurance programs as being too far outside the bounds of the GSEs’ mission.

An FHFA director with the view that the GSEs' footprint should be reduced could oppose the mortgage insurance pilots.

However, the pilot programs are too new to automatically write off, and the FHFA director could just as easily wait to see if the programs are effective before making a decision to implement them further, said Laurence Platt, an attorney at Mayer Brown.

“I don’t think this is an issue that will be dependent on who the new FHFA director is,” Platt said. “I don’t think there’s a partisan side to this, per se.”

To be sure, there are clear limits on what the next FHFA director can do administratively. Creating some new housing finance structure to replace the GSEs is the territory of Congress. Instituting an explicit government guarantee or changing the ownership charter or structure of the GSEs would need congressional approval, which is unlikely to happen in the short term.

Besides congressional reforms, there are other policy areas where the FHFA cannot move unilaterally. The FHFA would have to work with the Treasury Department to change the preferred stock purchase agreements, which require Fannie and Freddie to direct nearly all of their profit to Treasury. Investors have long claimed this is unfair, and have unsuccessfully challenged the legality of this agreement in court for several years.

MEL WATT, 72, FANNIE MAE CHIEF, INVESTIGATED FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIM BY FEMALE EMPLOYEE (#MeToo)

MEL WATT, 72, FANNIE MAE CHIEF, INVESTIGATED FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIM BY FEMALE EMPLOYEE (#MeToo):

FANNIE MAE OWNS THE LOANS FOR MANY U.S. MILITARY VETERAN HOMEOWNERS.

U.S. MILITARY VETERAN HOMEOWNERS ARE LOSING THEIR HOMES UNDER FANNIE MAE'S LEADERSHIP......WHY??

IF U.S. MILITARY VET HOMEOWNERS EXPERIENCE HARDSHIPS, WHY NOT TRANSFER THOSE LOANS TO VETERANS AFFAIRS ADMIN?

THE SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIM IS BEING THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATED BY A FEDERAL AGENCY.

THE VICTIM HAS HIRED A VERY REPUTABLE ATTORNEY.

MEL WATT IS A CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA NATIVE & FORMER U.S. CONGRESS MEMBER.

MEL WATT IS AN OBAMA ADMIN HOLDOVER. HIS FIVE-YR TERM ENDS IN 2019.

DRAIN THE SWAMP.


Post Sources: Politico, Charlotte Observer, Daily Caller, Youtube


****** **** Federal housing leader Mel Watt under investigation for sexual harassment claim


Mel Watt, a former Democratic congressman from Charlotte who now heads a federal housing agency, is under investigation for harassment of a female employee.

Politico first reported the allegations Friday, citing documents and partial transcripts of conversations between Watt and the employee, which the story did not name. The story describes three 2016 incidents of Watt making sexual advances on the woman.

A statement from Watt through the Federal Housing Finance Agency to McClatchy confirmed an ongoing investigation, as did an attorney for the woman.

“The selective leaks related to this matter are obviously intended to embarrass or to lead to an unfounded or political conclusion.

However, I am confident that the investigation currently in progress will confirm that I have not done anything contrary to law. I will have no further comment while the investigation is in progress,” said Watt, who is the agency’s director.

The investigation began a month or two ago, said Diane Seltzer Torre, an attorney for the woman who alleges the harassment.

Torre said the investigation is being conducted by an official with the U.S. Postal Service. It is typical for an outside agency to investigate claims such as these.

My client did not submit information to the media. She is not looking for attention and doesn’t want to talk to the media,” Torre said.

Torre declined to identify her client nor would she discuss her client’s employment status with the Federal Housing Finance Agency.

She said she is not aware of any other complaints against Watt.

Watt, 72, represented Charlotte in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1993 to 2014, when he was tapped by President Barack Obama to head the Federal Housing Finance Agency.

The agency oversees Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and FHLBanks, which provide nearly $6 trillion for mortgage markets and financial institutions, according to FHFA.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency was created after the housing crash in 2008 and it serves as the conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Watt was confirmed by the Senate 57-41 months after he was nominated. Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina was one of two Republicans to back Watt’s nomination.

Watt’s five-year term is set to expire in January. Watt is still on the job, a spokeswoman for the agency said.

Watt, an attorney, is married and has two grown children and three grandchildren, according to his FHFA bio.

A Mecklenburg County native, Watt graduated from UNC-Chapel Hill before earning a law degree at Yale. He served one term in the North Carolina state senate.

While in the U.S. House in 2011, Watt tried to slash funding for the Office of Congressional Ethics by 40 percent, a move that was soundly defeated.

Watt and seven colleagues were investigated and cleared by the office for fundraising that took place before a key House vote.

In 2008, Watt had voted to create the Office of Congressional Ethics.

“I wouldn’t call it a ‘personal vendetta,’” Watt told McClatchy at the time. “But I also wouldn’t deny that my experiences had something to do with my view of this agency.”

U.S. MILITARY VETERAN NON-PROFIT AGENCY FRAUD (VA FUNDS ABUSE)

U.S. MILITARY VETERAN NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION FRAUD (VA FUNDS ABUSE):

ADOPT-A-VET HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION & FINANCIAL HARDSHIP AGENCY FRAUD & ABUSE.

THEY SERVED & SACRIFICED HONORABLY, SO WHY MUST THEY NOW BEG TO RECEIVE HELP?

WHY ARE SO MANY NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS, AGENCIES & CHURCHES CLAIMING TO HELP VETS, ALLOWED BY CONGRESS TO DO VERY LITTLE FOR VETS TO MAINTAIN THEIR NON-PROFIT STATUS?

WHY DOESN’T CONGRESS ENACT LEGISLATION TO ANNUALLY AUDIT ALL NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS & AGENCIES WHICH CLAIM TO HELP HONORABLE U.S. MILITARY VETS?

WHY ARE SO MANY HONORABLE U.S. MILITARY VETS BEING DENIED VA LOANS BY FANNIE MAE AND MORTGAGE SERVICE COMPANIES?

WHY ARE SO MANY HONORABLE U.S. MILITARY VETS BEING FORCED INTO FORECLOSURE BY LENDERS?

WHY ARE SO MANY HONORABLE U.S. MILITARY VETS HOMELESS OR AT-RISK OF BEING HOMELESS?

WHY ARE SO MANY HONORABLE U.S. MILITARY VETS HUNGRY OR BEING DENIED FOOD STAMPS?

WHY ARE SO MANY HONORABLE U.S. MILITARY VETS BEING BURDENED WITH STUDENT LOAN DEBT WITH NO RELIEF?

WHY ARE SO MANY HONORABLE U.S. MILITARY VETS BEING DENIED SMALL BUSINESS ASSISTANCE BLOCKING THEM FROM CREATING JOBS?

WHY ARE SO MANY HONORABLE U.S. MILITARY VETS IN SOUTHERN STATES BEING PAID VERY LOW WAGES?

WHY???


Post Sources: CNN, FTC, Huffington Post, AP, Military Family Support Foundation, Youtube


******** Veterans Charity Fraud: Despite Widespread Outrage, Groups Continue To Abuse Public Trust


For hundreds of thousands of veterans returning home from the battlefronts in Iraq and Afghanistan, making it home alive is just the first challenge.

An estimated 25 percent of returning U.S. service members will experience combat-related problems such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), traumatic brain injury (TBI), depression or anxiety disorders. More veterans are committing suicide than are dying in combat overseas — 1,000 former soldiers receiving care from the Department of Veterans Affairs attempt suicide every month. About 50,000 veterans are experiencing chronic homelessness, according to nonprofit housing group HELP USA.

And the unemployment rate for 18 to 24-year-old veterans is 21 percent, much higher than the 16.6 percent rate for non-veterans of the same age.

Though the VA has come a long way from the 1970s, when many Vietnam veterans failed to reintegrate into society and became homeless and addicted to drugs, the department still has problems. The VA bureaucracy is notoriously difficult to navigate, and veterans are left to figure out on their own what benefits they are eligible for. As a result, many fall through the cracks — more than 720,000 veterans do not take advantage of VA benefits for which they are eligible.

To fill in the gap, veterans charities are a crucial resource — providing financial assistance and job training, funding medical research and rehabilitative services, and helping veterans obtain government benefits. Every year, Americans give millions of dollars to such groups, expecting that the money will assist those who’ve served their country.

But as a group, veterans charities are prone to abuse, profiteering and outright fraud, say philanthropy watchdogs.

Almost half of the 39 veterans charities rated by the American Institute of Philanthropy in its April/May 2011 report received F grades, largely because they devoted only a small ratio of their expenses to charitable programs, in part due to excessive fundraising expenses. Some of these groups defend their spending by arguing that reliance on such ratios is misleading, claiming that new nonprofits may have to spend over 50 percent of their revenue on outreach, education and fundraising for a while. But charities that spend up to 90 percent of their donations on overhead have been widely condemned and were the subject of congressional hearings in 2007.

Despite bipartisan outrage at such practices, there was no real follow-up, either through enforcement efforts or new rules and regulations. And several of the charities publicly shamed at those hearings continue to receive poor grades. In the last few years, there have been several prominent cases of nonprofit groups that preyed on the public’s patriotism and generosity, promising assistance to veterans while lining their own pockets. They range from an impostor — currently one of the most-sought fugitives in the country — who claimed he was a Navy commander and ripped off at least $2 million, to a classic fraudster, who set up a table for non-existent veterans groups in front of the local post office and raked in money for years.

CRUCIAL LIFELINE TO THOUSANDS OF VETERANS

Their misdeeds cast a pall over the sector, making the public skeptical of veterans charities and threatening future donations to those groups that deserve praise.

“Veterans charities are extraordinarily important,” Oregon Attorney General John Kroger tells The Huffington Post. “There is a lot the VA doesn’t do, and charities help fill that gap. And the majority of them do an excellent job, but if you’re looking to line your own pocket, it’s an easy way to raise money. If you’re looking for a feel-good cause that can raise money on the phone, there is very little that has as much appeal as veterans’ issues.”

Darnell Epps, a 52-year-old veteran living in Virginia Beach, was homeless for years until he discovered Vetshouse, the only nonprofit in Virginia to help homeless veterans. Through the group, he was given a car to help him start his cleaning business and provided with transitional housing and food.

“If it wasn’t for them, I would probably still be out on the street,” he says. “They gave me my life back. The VA can’t do it all and these charities are key; they’ve helped many of us vets.”

Ed Edmundson credits veterans charities with easing the burden of his son, Eric, who incurred shrapnel wounds and a brain injury in a roadside bomb explosion in Iraq. The North Carolina native says he sold his business and cashed in his savings and retirement to pay for the cost of moving in with Eric and his family to provide round-the-clock care. Some of the family’s expenses, including the cost of flying Eric’s wife and daughter from Alaska to Walter Reed Medical Center, were covered by various charities, such as the Wounded Warrior Project and the Semper Fi Fund.

“Non-profit organizations became an answer to our prayers,” says Edmundson.

The Wounded Warrior Project and several other prominent veterans charities such as Fisher House Foundation, the Navy-Marine Corps Relief Society and the National Military Family Association, have been praised for assisting thousands of veterans.

ABUSING THE TRUST OF DONORS: ‘THIS IS A HUGE PROBLEM’

Attorney General Kroger says the issue is close to his heart since he himself is a veteran of the Marine Corps. But when his office recently surveyed the rising number of charities in Oregon and which ones spend the most on overhead as opposed to charity, “a number of veterans groups came up extraordinarily high on the list. One was outright fraud — a guy setting up a table at a shopping mall — and another problem was people who were raising money and not being honest about where the money was going. This is a huge problem.”

Since taking office in 2009, Kroger has been particularly aggressive in taking legal action against veterans charities that abuse the trust of donors. Among his cases is a lawsuit against Veterans of Oregon, charging that the charity claimed that donations were helping homeless and hospitalized veterans when in fact it was largely used to award medals to veterans. In addition, the group failed to disclose to donors that its fundraising partner kept 80 percent of the money it raised. The head of the charity, William “John” Neuman, is fighting the case, adamantly denying to the Chronicle of Philanthropy that he misled donors.

Kroger also sued the Oregon War Veterans Association and Military Family Support Foundation, claiming that founder Greg Warnock kept most of the money he raised and used donations to make contributions to powerful politicians in the state. The group has called the suit “baseless” and called for an investigation of Kroger.

After initially declining to comment, Warnock wrote HuffPost a lengthy statement. Among his claims, he states that “Kroger’s claims are purely political in nature and do not warrant the kind of destructive abuse we are enduring from him, especially considering all of the amazing accomplishments we have made on behalf of veterans in Oregon and beyond.” Warnock vehemently denies that he kept most of the money his group raised and claims that Kroger neglected to interview the group’s board members, donors or recipients. Warnock also says the campaign contributions were permitted political activity.

The attorney general says he can’t comment due to the pending litigation but emphasizes, “When you’re going after people and trying to hold them accountable, lots of them fire back.”

Such schemes that exploit patriotic sentiment for the plight of veterans have been around for many decades. In 1926, the New York Evening Post exposed a plot hatched in the wake of the armistice that ended World War One by the “battalions of bunk” to raise several million dollars “purporting to aid former soldiers but actually hiding the proceeds away in secret bank accounts.” Part of the scheme involved several cleaning women who borrowed neighbors’ children, dressed them in rags and pleaded for money from passersby. And in 1958, five Chicagoans were dragged before the House veterans affairs committee to defend themselves against charges that they bilked Disabled American Veterans of $2 million — three of them were later charged with mail fraud and conspiracy. That same year, Rep. Olin Teague “found so much abuse in fund raising [sic] for veterans” that he urged the House Government Operations Committee to open a wide-ranging probe into the entire field of tax-exempt charitable fundraising, reported the Gadsden Times.

“The most popular causes — veterans, firefighters, police — tend to be the least efficient because they attract money-hungry types,” says Daniel Borochoff, the president of the American Institute of Philanthropy. “There is very little oversight so it keeps happening again and again.” He notes that most enforcement happens on the state level, which often just prompts fraudulent groups to cross state lines “and come out under a different name.”

BIPARTISAN OUTRAGE AT ‘INTOLERABLE FRAUD’

The prevalence of fraud and misrepresentation in the sector has prompted Congressional scrutiny and bipartisan outrage but very few repercussions. In 2004, the Senate Finance Committee called for a panel to examine nonprofit governance, transparency and ethical standards. Though it concluded that government oversight and regulation was necessary to deter abuse, misrepresentation and fraud, it also maintained that charities are granted wide latitude in their activities due to First Amendment protections and did not recommend any new legislation.

In December 2007 and January 2008, the House Oversight Committee held hearings to spotlight abuses in the system, highlighting several egregious examples. Then-chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) noted that the American Institute of Philanthropy had given failing grades to 70 percent of the veterans charities it examined for several reasons: managing their resources poorly, paying high overhead costs and direct mail campaigns and excessive salaries. Citing the example of the American Veterans Relief Foundation, which raised $3.6 million and spent only $21,000 on veterans’ grants and assistance, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) thundered:

They fall into the category of what I would call “profiteering,” profiteering by those who use the name of a soldier or a cause in order to justify fundraising that ultimately leads to profit for individuals who may or may not be veterans, may or may not have any need, may simply be good at fundraising.
That particular charity is now defunct, but two other prominent charities whose leaders were subpoenaed to appear before the committee still operate and continue their questionable practices.

One of the hearing’s most dramatic confrontations was with Roger Chapin, a self-described “nonprofit entrepreneur” and former
real-estate developer who has launched more than 20 charities. One of those charities, Help Hospitalized Veterans, has been praised for distributing millions of therapeutic arts and crafts gifts to patients at VA medical centers, state nursing homes and military hospitals. The group, which also provides a variety of services to homebound veterans and cash support to many VA special events, has been praised by presidents and Congressional leaders since its founding in 1971.

But a Forbes magazine articles questioned whether Chapin and his wife were using their charities to fund their high salaries and illegitimate expenses such as vehicles, real estate investments and a $17,000 annual country club membership. In addition, the magazine reported that out of every dollar donated to HHV, only 9 cents went to the kits, 5 cents went to administrative expenses and for counselors visiting hospitals and 47 cents went to direct-mail expenses.

One of the charities’ critics was Edmundson, who said he didn’t feel it was “appropriate” to give a small percentage of donations to charity. He added, “I am concerned, the negative effect that the few self-serving non-profits will have on the ability of the legitimate non-profits to obtain funding from the general public. It would be an unfortunate turn of events if the service they provide is not available. As I have shared, the service they provide is immediate and personalized to the needs of the soldiers and their families.”

Chapin didn’t win any friends by reportedly going into hiding after refusing to comply with a subpoena to appear before the committee. When he did finally appear a month later, he explained that fundraising for many charities across the country depends on direct-mail expenses and that it was unfair to pick on his charity. Chapin claimed that HHV was awarded two stars by Charity Navigator, a leading watchdog group. Coming to his defense was Richard Viguerie, prominent conservative fundraiser, who lashed out at the committee, claiming that Waxman’s agenda was “unconstitutional” and “mean” and stating that advertising mail can be valuable just by generating sympathy for returning veterans.

Chapin retired from Help Hospitalized Veterans in 2009 with a $2.2 million payment package. He still serves as the president of another of his charities, the Salute to America’s Heroes Foundation. Both charities were given zero stars in Charity Navigator’s most recent evaluation, though they have increased the percentage of funds they spent on charitable programs.

Reached at home, Chapin said both charities had not made any changes in response to the criticism of their fundraising expenses, defiantly stating, “Hell, we just keep doing what we’ve been doing.” He called the hearing a “charade” and a “witch hunt,” explaining that SAHF has helped almost 20,000 veterans. He continued to defend the heavy reliance and spending on direct mail practitioners, even in the age of Facebook and Twitter and online charitable tools. “It’s an expensive way to raise money but we’re all challenged and it’s tough as hell to get donations. But something is a hell of a lot better than nothing.”

The other target in the sights of lawmakers at the 2007 hearing was Pamela Seman, the executive director of the Disabled Veterans Association, a charity which kept only $500,000 out of $4.5 million in donations raised — about 10 percent — through a professional fundraising group.

“It makes all of us angry that the veterans, people who have served our country are used to raise money to give [to] some professional organization in the business,” said Waxman. “It’s absolutely inexcusable.”

Seman, who still leads the organization, did not return calls for comment. DVA received zero stars in its latest evaluation from Charity Navigator and an F rating from the American Institute of Philanthropy. Its fundraising ratio has grown even higher, with only 5 percent going to charitable programs.

WASHINGTON DITHERS WHILE FRAUD CONTINUES

In Washington, there has not been much action. On the first day of the 2007 hearings, former Rep. Sarbanes, the author of the post-Enron accounting rules that bear his name, stated that there may be a need for stricter regulation of charities, emphasizing that “charities that serve our veterans have an extra obligation because there is a deeper trust placed in them, a broader trust than with respect to just about any other charitable endeavor.”

Though there was some discussion of legislative remedies in the wake of the hearings, especially in regard to requiring more disclosure of charity spending in direct mail pitches, nothing happened. Though some watchdog groups have pressed for more hearings to re-examine the issue, none are planned. A spokesman for Rep. Issa, who now chairs the Oversight Committee, did not return emails requesting comment.

“It got a lot of press attention during the hearings but after that died down, there wasn’t any significant demand for more disclosure or information,” says Bennett Weiner, the COO of the Better Business Bureau’s Wise Giving Alliance and an advocate of voluntary standards rather than government regulation. He says that veterans charities have slightly improved their performance, noting that the number which failed to meet one or more of their standards dropped from 62 to 54 percent. But he notes: “No question about it, veterans and police and firefighter groups have been well-known to be subject to questionable practices by those who got involved in the field and realize that there is public sympathy and the chance to raise money.”

Meanwhile, the alleged scams continue. Last month, prosecutors in Ohio pursued Vietnam veteran Michael Muhammad, claiming that he raised money for himself through his charities, Help Homeless Veterans and Veterans Hope Community House. They also claim that he was charging veterans to stay at a shelter that offered horrible living conditions. His lawyer denies the charges, saying that the money raised went to aid veterans.

And last week, an associate of one of the most brazen fundraising fraudsters in recent history pled guilty to corruption, theft and money laundering at a county court in Ohio. Bianca Contreras was the treasurer of the U.S. Navy Veterans Association, a group founded by a man known as Bobby Thompson, who is accused of using a false identity to raise millions of dollars.

Though the money was ostensibly intended for Navy veterans and Thompson attracted praise from Congressional leaders for his purported efforts, the money went into his own pocket, say attorneys general in several states. Thompson is currently a fugitive, and officials remain tight-lipped about any progress in finding him. But Contreras is expected to cooperate with prosecutors, which may reveal some clues to his identity. The 39-year-old Tampa woman faces up to 25 years in prison when she comes up for sentencing in August.

Donors who’ve been misled can be hard to identify, since most are not aware that they’ve been ripped off, says Weiner. “The number one recommendation for people wanting to contribute to a good cause is to check out the charity — the vast majority of people don’t do that. Get a financial report from the group’s website, verify that they are properly registered in your state, check with a third-party group that checks these groups out.”

This story has been updated to include comment from Greg Warnock, founder of Military Family Support Foundation.