Ethics: 2009 News

Oct 30, 2009 -- Statement By Reform Groups Regarding Activities of the House Ethics Committee and Office of Congressional Ethics

Statement of Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, Democracy 21, League of Women Voters, Public Citizen and U.S. PIRG:

Our organizations have sought to improve and strengthen a discredited congressional ethics process, including the creation of a more independent investigatory office. We note that yesterday's inadvertent release of information regarding the activities of the House Ethics Committee and the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) indicates that both groups are seriously pursuing their ethics responsibilities at this stage. In our view, OCE, both by its very existence and by its actions, deserves much credit for this sharp increase in activity at the Ethics Committee as compared to previous years.

We are deeply concerned, however, about yesterday's actions by the Ethics Committee with respect to the investigation of Representative Sam Graves (R-MO).

The Ethics Committee's strong attack on the OCE in its report dismissing the Graves case is completely uncalled for and raises serious concerns that the Ethics Committee is engaged in an effort to undermine, weaken and possibly eliminate the Office. It also raises serious concerns about the Ethics Committee's approach to interpreting House ethics rules.

The Graves matter is the first instance where the newly created Office has been publicly attacked by the Ethics Committee. The result has been a messy public food fight, with the House Ethics Committee inappropriately challenging the activities of the OCE. This outcome is unfortunate and we believe should have been resolved more professionally and amicably. If the Ethics Committee had problems with OCE, they should have been negotiated out in good will discussions as the process moved forward. Unfortunately, that did not happen in this case.

The accusations lodged against the OCE by the Ethics Committee include its failure to abide by the rules on timelines, and the failure to provide Rep. Graves and the Committee with what the Committee describes as relevant and exculpatory information. We believe that these questions about timelines and their extensions in this case were relatively minor and can be easily resolved in future cases. Similarly, there can be greater clarification about what materials should be made available by OCE to the Committee and to the subject of an OCE investigation. These disagreements should be viewed as bumps in the road that can and should be easily fixed.

But the lengthy Ethics Committee Report also contains the very troubling finding by the Committee that "no relevant House rule or other standard of conduct prohibits the creation of an appearance of a conflict of interest when selecting witnesses for a committee hearing." On this basis, the Ethics Committee goes on to conclude that OCE could not find a violation of any current House Rule or other standard of conduct and that it violated "both its authorizing resolution and its own rules when it forwarded this matter" to the Committee.

This approach to the ethics rules ignores the fact that there are various places in the ethics rules themselves where an appearance standard has been used by the Ethics Committee to find ethics violations.

House Members, for example, are subject to the "broad ethical standards" articulated in the Code of Official Conduct. Id. at 12. These standards provide that Members shall conduct themselves "at all times in a manner which shall reflect creditably on the House of Representatives." Rule 23, cl. 1.

This standard is "the most comprehensive provision of the code," according to the House Ethics Manual id. at 13-14, and has been cited and relied on by the Ethics Committee in numerous prior ethics matters.

Thus, the notion that there are no appearance standards that could have applied to this case is just plain wrong. The "most comprehensive provision of the code" could have applied in this case. As a result, it is wrong for the Ethics Committee to claim that OCE violated "both its authorizing resolution and its own rules when it forwarded this matter" to the Committee.

There are other examples, furthermore, where an appearance of conflict or impropriety standard is found in the House ethics process.

For example, the appearance standard is found in the House Ethics Manual which states "Caution should always be exercised to avoid the appearance that solicitations of campaign contributions from constituents are connected in any way with a legislator's official advocacy." House Ethics Manual at 257 (1992 ed.).

The House Manual also states that House Members "should be aware of the appearance of impropriety that could arise from championing the causes of contributors and take care not to show favoritism to them over other constituents." Id. at 251.

Thus, the Ethics Committee dismissal of an appearance standard in ethics matters is a serious and regrettable mistake by the Ethics Committee We urge the House leadership to reject this notion and to take steps to correct the impression left by the Ethics Committee.

In addition, we note that the Ethics Committee attacks OCE for misapplying the "substantial reason to believe" test on the grounds that it did not cite the relevant ethics rule that may have been violated in this case. As House rules state, it is a core responsibility of OCE to determine whether a matter should be dismissed or should be sent to the Ethics Committee, based on whether OCE determines there is substantial reason to believe that any ethics rules and standards may have been violated. In fact, OCE did cite relevant ethics standard that may have been violated. It is then the Ethics Committee's responsibility to further investigate and adjudicate the matter. We strongly believe that the Ethics Committee should maintain its focus on the many important ethics matters currently before it rather than engaging in an extensive and time-consuming effort to undermine the basic functions and jurisdiction of the OCE.

While we are pleased that the Ethics Committee decided to release to the public the report and findings of OCE, as required by House rules, the Committee, by its own admission in its report, seriously considered not releasing the OCE report as requested by Representative Graves' legal counsel. To have refused to release the OCE report would have been a violation of House rules and would have called for serious criticism of the Ethics Committee. One of the main purposes in creating the OCE was to increase transparency.

The Ethics Committee's Report in the Graves matter reveals a troubling approach that has too often characterized the Ethics Committee's enforcement of House ethics rules. Too often, the Committee has resorted to highly technical legal interpretations or to questionable interpretations of the House ethics rules and standards when confronted with questionable activities that, to the public, come across as unseemly but are common practice among Members of Congress.

But the Ethics Committee has staked out much more dangerous territory here in (1) concluding that there is no relevant appearance standard that could apply in this situation and (2) attacking OCE for forwarding a matter which OCE concluded deserved Committee adjudication. The Committee's attacks on these points were misguided and the Committee's exoneration of Representative Graves based on this interpretation does not help the credibility of the House Ethics committee or the ethics process.

The transparency resulting from the release of the OCE Report and the Ethics Committee's Report has brought into full public view the internal struggle that is occurring between OCE and the House Ethics Committee. As public reports have shown, there are Members who apparently believe the OCE is either unnecessary or unwarranted. In the Graves Report, the Ethics Committee seems intent on giving OCE's opponents as much ammunition as they could muster.

We applaud the OCE for its performance to date. We recognize and appreciate that the Ethics Committee is currently engaged in serious ethics inquiries in multiple cases. We are concerned about the Ethics Committee's apparent efforts to attack the OCE and strongly urge the Committee to back off and work out its differences with OCE in an amicable, professional, and negotiated process.

Oct 27, 2009 -- Ethics Committee Must Launch Investigations or Release OCE Fact Finding Reports by Week's End

A report released today reveals that the House Ethics Committee has until Friday October 30, 2009 to empanel investigative subcommittees or to release reports compiled by the independent Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) related to ethics questions raised about Members of the House. The third quarter report issued by the OCE revealed the impending deadline for action by the Ethics Committee.

According to the report, the recommendations to the Committee may include "among other things, findings of fact and citations to laws, rules or regulations that may have been violated."

In a statement, the reform groups, U.S. PIRG, Public Citizen, Common Cause, Campaign Legal Center, The League of Women Voters, and Democracy 21 said:

"Friday is the first benchmark of the new transparency that was promised in the creation of the OCE on the heels of Speaker Pelosi's commitment to 'the most honest , most open , and most ethical Congress in history.' We look forward to this milestone in the OCE's brief history."

The independent OCE was created by the house to increase transparency and accountability in the House ethics process. It first began operating during this Congress,

The quarterly report issued today explained that the OCE had referred several of its preliminary investigations into potential ethics violations to the full House ethics committee ("Standards Committee"). The report further indicated that the deadline for ethics committee action in several cases would be Friday.

"Under House rules, the House ethics committee has two options upon reaching this deadline: it can release the OCE reports or it can formally open an investigation of the referred cases, or empanelling a subcommittee," the statement continued. "The OCE was created as part of an effort to restore integrity and public credibility in the House ethics process. We hope this October deadline will be the beginning of a new level of transparency of the ethics process."

To view the report, click here .

Oct 2, 2009 -- Reform Groups Urge Support for Office Of Congressional Ethics

In a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Republican Leader John Boehner, reform groups urged them to support the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE), and the House Resolution and OCE rules implementing the resolution that limit the ability of the House Ethics Committee to remove ethics matters from the OCE.

The reform groups also sent to Speaker Pelosi and Republican Leader Boehner a copy of a letter they had sent to OCE about this matter on September 30, 2009.

The reform groups also expressed in their letter to the Speaker and Republican Leader, "concerns about a recent incident in which the House Ethics Committee publicly challenged the performance of the OCE regarding an ethics matter forwarded to the Committee by the OCE."

The reform groups sending the letter to the Speaker and Republican Leader, and to OCE, include Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, Democracy 21, League of Women Voters, Public Citizen and U.S. PIRG.

In the letter to Speaker Pelosi and Republican Leader Boehner, the groups quote the letter they sent to the OCE which stated:

Under the rules adopted by the OCE to implement the House resolution establishing the Office, the OCE is required to cease an inquiry and refer the matter to the Ethics Committee "because of an ongoing investigation of such matter by an investigatory subcommittee" of the Committee (emphasis added).

This means that the Ethics Committee can assert jurisdiction and take a matter away from the OCE only if the Committee has "an ongoing investigation" of the matter being conducted by an "investigatory subcommittee."

The letter to the House leaders further quotes the letter to OCE from the reform groups as stating:

Questions have been raised in recent months as to whether the House Ethics Committee could on its own establish additional circumstances in which the Committee could take matters away from the OCE.

We strongly believe the answer to this is clear: the Committee cannot do so.

The letter goes on to quote the OCE letter stating:

As you are aware, the matter of limiting the instances in which a matter could be removed from the OCE by the Ethics Committee was a very important issue during the deliberations that led to the creation of the OCE. One of the major reasons for the establishment of the OCE was to address the problem of ethics matters disappearing in the past into a "black hole" at the Ethics Committee and never being addressed, without anyone having to take formal responsibility for the failure of Congress to do anything about the ethics matter.

It was considered essential by supporters of the OCE that the Committee could not accomplish the same "black hole" result simply by prematurely taking a matter away from the OCE. This issue was addressed in the House rules adopted to create the OCE by giving the Committee only a carefully limited ability to take a matter from the OCE.

In the letter, the reform groups strongly urged Speaker Pelosi and Republican Leader Boehner "to support the OCE and the House resolution that limits the authority of the House Ethics Committee to remove ethics matters from the OCE."

The reform groups also expressed in the letter their concern "about the recent incident in which the House Ethics Committee publicly challenged the work of the OCE." The letter from the reform groups to the House leaders states:

We believe it was inappropriate for the Ethics Committee to issue a public statement in the middle of an ongoing, nonpublic ethics inquiry that challenged the work done by the OCE on a matter forwarded to the Committee by the OCE. In response, the OCE issued its own statement refuting the Committee claims.

In taking this action, the Ethics Committee left the public impression that it seemed more concerned about the activities of the OCE than it was about the ethics inquiry involved. It is unclear to us why the Committee could not have addressed its concerns through private discussions with the OCE rather than making a public challenge. It is also unclear why the Committee felt compelled to make such a public statement about the work of OCE in the middle of a nonpublic ethics inquiry by the Ethics Committee.

The letter from the reform groups to Speaker Pelosi and Republican Leader Boehner concludes:

Based on the public record, we believe that the OCE is doing an excellent job.

We do not want to see the performance of the OCE undermined by inappropriate challenges to their work, nor do we want to see the stage being set for attempting to weaken the powers or the independence of the OCE, when the House adopts new rules at the outset of the next Congress.

To view the letter to Speaker Pelosi and Minority Leader Boehner, click here.

To view the letter tothe Office of Congressional Ethics, click here.

Apr 15, 2009 -- Attorney General Urged to Remove Supervisors Who Handled Sen. Stevens' Prosecution

Today the Campaign Legal Center wrote to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder urging him to safeguard ongoing public corruption investigations and prosecutions by placing the supervisors who oversaw the prosecution of Senator Ted Stevens on administrative leave or by reassigning them temporarily.

Apr 1, 2009 -- DOJ Motion to Dismiss Sen. Stevens Indictment: Statement of J. Gerald Hebert, Campaign Legal Center Executive Director

Attorney General Eric Holder's announcement yesterday that, after reviewing the record and based on the totality of circumstances, he was going to seek dismissal of the original indictment against convicted former Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) raises serious questions and concerns. The motion filed by the Government in the case today and other allegations of prosecutorial misconduct in the case are gravely serious and must be fully addressed. But the outright dismissal of an indictment rather than agreeing to a new trial is such an extreme measure that it warrants additional explanation. What is it about the information that now justifies outright dismissal of the indictment with prejudice?

Mar 19, 2009 -- A Legal Analysis of Senate Electronic Filing Bill (S. 482) and Poison Pill Amendment

The Campaign Legal Center has created a Legal Analysis of the Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act (S. 482) and an anticipated hostile amendment that has been utilized by opponents to derail previous versions of this Senate electronic filing legislation.

Mar 2, 2009 -- Legal Analysis of the Public Corruption Prosecution Improvements Act

The Campaign Legal Center has reviewed S. 49, the Public Corruption Prosecution Improvements Act. S. 49 seeks to strengthen federal public corruption laws by closing loopholes in the federal bribery and illegal gratuities statute and by providing federal prosecutors with additional resources to combat official misconduct. We conclude that this legislation would be an important tool in holding public officials accountable for abuses of public office.

Feb 18, 2009 -- Dragging the Census into the White House: Statement of Meredith McGehee, Campaign Legal Center Policy Director

The announcement that the White House intends to take a direct role in overseeing the 2010 census is disturbing. At a minimum, it gives the appearance of politicizing a key pillar of our representative democracy - a fair and impartial counting of all Americans, as required by the Constitution.

Feb 10, 2009 -- Charging Baseball Players but Not DOJ Officials for False Testimony to Congress: Statement of J. Gerald Hebert, Campaign Legal Center Executive Director

Today's charge against major league baseball star Miguel Tejada speaks volumes about the skewed law enforcement priorities within the Justice Department.

CLC Files Comments with OCE

On January 31, 2008, the Legal Center submitted comments to the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) regarding the OCE's Rules for the Conduct of Investigations and Code of Conduct. The OCE was created by House resolution in March of 2008 to conduct independent, impartial investigations of potential violations of congressional ethics rules and related statutes, and to bring greater transparency to the House ethics enforcement process.

To read the comments, click here.

Jan 21, 2009 -- Revolving Door Executive Order: Statement of Meredith McGehee, Campaign Legal Center Policy Director

No two ways about it, the revolving door provisions in the new Executive Order issued by President Obama are very tough. They make clear that public service should not be viewed as a means of enriching oneself after leaving a federal position. Being called to serve your nation by the President is an honor, not a meal ticket or a lottery ticket to be cashed in on K Street.

Revolving Door Executive Order: Statement of Meredith McGehee, Campaign Legal Center Policy Director

No two ways about it, the revolving door provisions in the new Executive Order issued by President Obama are very tough. They make clear that public service should not be viewed as a means of enriching oneself after leaving a federal position. Being called to serve your nation by the President is an honor, not a meal ticket or a lottery ticket to be cashed in on K Street.

For too long, serving in government has been seen by too many people in Washington as a way to get their ticket- punched - spend a few years in a comparatively lower paying job and cashing in on the back end based on the title and access. Hopefully that practice will cease, at least during this Administration, but hopefully going forward as well. This is the kind of behavior that has fed the American people's cynicism about their government. The new restrictions can help rebuild trust in government and begin to deliver on the promise to change the way business is done in Washington.

However, it is important to recall that former President Bill Clinton repealed his revolving door restrictions on the way out the door, freeing his appointees from the strict post-employment restrictions. That is why legislation is needed to ensure that the new, unprecedented rules extend past this Administration.

As for the ban on gifts from lobbyists, this is just common sense and brings the executive branch in line with the new rules in Congress. Not to devalue these steps by the new Administration, but this is one of many steps that must be taken in order to bring about the kind of change that Americans are expecting. We have high hopes that such changes will continue.