In response to the recent article 'S.C. congressman Clyburn rips ethics probes', which appeared in the Savannah Morning News, CREW Executive Director Melanie Sloan penned this letter to the editor which ran today:

Clyburn wrong to blast ethics watchdogs

Rep. James Clyburn's recent comments about the Office of Congressional Ethics and my organization, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, suggest it is the congressman, and not CREW, who has "gotten a wild hair" and "just say things." (" S.C. congressman Clyburn rips ethics probes," Aug. 28).

First, contrary to Rep. Clyburn's statements, the OCE has played no role in the ethics investigation into Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-NY. Mr. Rangel filed an ethics complaint against himself with the House Ethics Committee. The committee then conducted a two-year investigation, found reason to believe Mr. Rangel violated House rules and federal law, and scheduled a hearing on the matter for this fall.

The OCE did investigate former Rep. Nathan Deal, R-Ga. - following a complaint by CREW (.pdf) - and reported that Mr. Deal had abused his office to protect his personal business interests and lied on his personal financial disclosure forms. The Department of Justice found enough merit in the report to open a criminal investigation.

A number of Congressional Black Caucus members as well as Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, share Mr. Clyburn's view that the OCE should be gutted, but it's not because the office has an "accusatory mentality about every violation." It is because the OCE is doing its job: Holding members of Congress accountable for unethical conduct. Thanks to the OCE, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., will be forced to explain her intervention with the Treasury Department on behalf of a bank in which her husband has a financial interest.

The OCE was created in the wake of public outrage over congressional indifference to scandals involving lobbyist Jack Abramoff and former Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas - matters on which CREW was focusing public attention when the Ethics Committee was sitting it out. Even now, the OCE fights with one hand tied behind its back. The office has no subpoena power and cannot insist anyone speak to its investigators. Responsible leaders should talk of strengthening the OCE, not dismantling it.

MELANIE SLOAN

Executive Director
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
Washington, D.C.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington's Executive Director Melanie Sloan appeared on AC360 to discuss the recent controversy over Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson awarding Congressional Black Caucus scholarships to multiple family members.

When you come to a fork in the road, take it" - Yogi Berra

The former Yankee catcher certainly wasn't talking about elections when he first uttered that immortal line, but he might as well have been.  Last night in several states across the country, primary voters went to the polls forced to choose between some less-than-impressive - and in a few cases outright crooked - candidates.  We're sure in many minds - no choice felt like much of a good choice at all.

In Florida's Democratic Primary for U.S. Senate, Jeff Greene was blue.  Greene earned his way to CREW's Crooked Candidates list by playing fast and loose with campaign finance laws.  Though that's not to say the night's "winners" are much better.  The remaining three candidates: Marco Rubio, Charlie Christ and Kendrick Meek, all made CREW's Crooked Candidates list as well.  The disturbing fact here is that one of them will almost certainly be the next Senator from Florida.  Some choice Floridians had at that fork in the road isn't it?  

Out west in Arizona, Senate stalwart John McCain cruised to victory over Crooked Candidate JD Hayworth despite reports of underwhelmed voters "holding their nose" in the booth.  While Sen. McCain has been no stranger to scandals in the past, Mr. Hayworth's extensive ties to convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff may still have been fresh in the minds of voters.

And up north in the last frontier, Most Corrupt alum Don Young (R-AK) - the member of Congress who prefers "bridges to nowhere" to forks in the road - was overwhelmingly skated through the Republican primary.

The American people deserve better.  We shouldn't have to choose between the lesser of two evils when we go to vote, and we shouldn't have to worry that the Most Corrupt Candidates in America will someday grow up to become the Most Corrupt Members of Congress.

.

This blog post is cross-posted on The Huffington Post:

Earlier this month, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a scathing report about the for-profit college industry. After conducting undercover tests at 15 for-profit colleges, the GAO found that representatives of four colleges had encouraged applicants to engage in fraud to secure government college loans and that representatives at all 15 had attempted to deceive applicants in some way.

No two ways about it, this is terrible. People looking to increase their marketability in a tough economic climate are being deceived about what an education at these schools will cost, what doors these degrees might open, and the salaries students can expect upon graduation. Perhaps worse, at least some schools are encouraging applicants to engage in out-and-out fraud to obtain government loans and are telling students not to worry about repaying them. Many of these students, unable to repay their loans, are defaulting on them and costing taxpayers millions of dollars.

In addition to the issues highlighted by the most recent GAO report, there have been other problems as well. Some for-profit colleges spend a large portion of revenue on non-teaching related expenses, have high dropout rates, and engage in abusive recruiting and debt-management practices.

Given all of the abuses documented, and the ever-increasing amount of federal student aid dollars flowing to these schools, the industry clearly merits greater scrutiny and regulation by both Congress and the Obama administration. But it is also worth noting that for-profit colleges are not the only ones engaged in deceptive tactics here. Some urging additional regulation of the industry are not exactly on the up-and-up themselves. It seems hedge fund managers have developed a remarkable interest in for-profit educational institutions, and not out of heartfelt concern for the American educational system.

Steven Eisman, for example, a hedge fund manager who previously manipulated market reaction in the for-profit education industry and has raked in cash through short sales based on dire public forecasts for companies in that industry, testified (PDF) before a Senate committee in June that the industry is fundamentally unsound and we should expect to lose millions from students who attend such schools and default on their loans. Last May, after a speech before the Ira Sohn Research Conference in which he described specific for-profit education institutions as on financially shaky ground, share values of those companies plummeted and Mr. Eisman reaped huge profits.

Shortly after Mr. Eisman testified about the evils of for-profit colleges, ProPublica reported on other efforts by those with financial interests to encourage federal regulation of the industry. An unidentified hedge fund manager (though according to Mr. Eisman, not him) hired Johnette McConnell Early to encourage federal regulation of for-profit education by sending Education Secretary Arne Duncan a letter signed by 19 executives of homeless shelters and service agencies expressing the concern that "for-profit trade schools and career colleges are systematically preying upon our clients," and pledging support for tighter regulation. While some of those who signed the letter had personal knowledge of aggressive recruiting tactics, others had only heard about them third-hand. Ms. Early claimed not to know whether the hedge fund she worked for was betting against the for-profit higher education industry, but she did admit, "Clearly an investment firm is not going to look into something unless they're thinking about whether it's a good or bad investment."

Further, a non-profit group associated with another high-profile investor, Manuel P. Asensio, has written five letters to members of Congress and regulators since April criticizing the for-profit college industry and calling for stricter regulation. On top of this, one analyst of short-selling stated, "Short sellers have shown a steadily increasing interest in for-profit schools."

These examples suggest there may be a concerted effort by those who stand to benefit financially to drive down the stock price of certain for-profit schools. Knowing this, how can we be sure that the new regulations the Department of Education is proposing are really in the best interest of the Americans most likely to attend these schools? Even more disturbing, the revelations of the hedge fund managers' efforts here raise the specter of whether federal oversight and regulatory processes are being secretly manipulated for financial benefit in other instances.

While for-profit colleges have been rightfully criticized for offering little transparency as to how well taxpayers have been served by our substantial investment in that industry, some of the efforts to fuel anger against and encourage regulation of these schools are similarly lacking in transparency. Congress and the Department of Education should remain vigilant against the efforts of a few opportunistic multi-millionaires to abuse the regulatory process for their own pecuniary interests.

Melanie Sloan is CREW's Executive Director.

Don't you just love it when politicians blame other people for their problems? 

Case in point; Nevada Republican Senator John Ensign, who astonishingly is blaming CREW for his troubles (pdf).  Remember, this is the senator who slept with a campaign staffer married to his chief of staff, fired them both, and then had his parents pay them off.  He then helped the cuckolded husband set up shop lobbying the senator's own office.

Yet somehow, in Senator Ensign's twilight zone of a world, CREW is the source of his problems?  The junior senator from Nevada needs a reality check, not a check for his legal defense.

Senator Ensign's letter makes two things clear; Senator Ensign must resign, and CREW's mission to bring responsibility and ethics to Washington is gaining momentum.  With Congressional elections just around the corner, we need your help to keep the pressure on.

"Fair or not, the terms "crook" and "politician" have become synonymous in the minds of many today. Yet leaders of both parties seem to be declaring mission accomplished when it comes to cleaning up Washington."
- Executive Director Melanie Sloan, NY Times 8/14/10

We've got a lot of work to do.  A donation to CREW sends a message to those in Congress that if politicians won't police themselves, the American public will.

Click here to donate to CREW today.

.

Sometimes it’s just easier to let other people’s words do the talking for us. Case and point, Jon Ralston’s column in this Sunday’s Las Vegas Sun.

“John Ensign is a man of many talents, not the least of which are his skill at twisting the truth and of putting on a false front to the world.”

Wow! The truth hurts doesn’t in John?

In case you missed it, Senator Ensign took leave of his senses (again) this past week, and decided it would be a good idea to blame CREW (.pdf) for his problems. Can you believe it? He sleeps with a campaign staffer, who happens to be married to his Chief of Staff, fires them both, has his parents pay them off, and then helps the jilted husband set up a lobbying shop to lobby the Senator’s own office. Yet, somehow the mess he’s in is CREW’s fault? It sure sounds like Senator Ensign needs a mirror more than he needs cash from his constituents.

Needless to say, Nevadans saw right through it—and Ralston took him to the woodshed for it.

Someday soon, we hope Senator Ensign will send another letter to Nevadans, actually taking responsibility for his actions, and explaining to them why he is walking away from his office, but it doesn’t look like today will be that day- as Ralston pointed out:

“Of all the myriad character traits Ensign possesses — skillful liar, world-class hypocrite, brilliant poseur — resignation would require him to have the one thing he so clearly lacks: A conscience.”

So until then we’ll keep up the good fight- and continue to hold Senator Ensign’s feet to the fire, as we do with every other equally corrupt member, no matter what political party they belong to.

The week is already off to an exciting start--- and it’s only Monday.

.

Our Friday afternoon has gotten a little more interesting. We’ve received word that embattled Nevada Senator John Ensign (R-NV) is not only blaming CREW for his troubles, but calling us out in a letter soliciting funds for his legal defense (.pdf). We're flattered, but by still failing to take responsibility for his actions Senator Ensign is only proving our point.

As we reported when the senator first set up his Legal Expense Trust Fund, "This isn't the only financial avenue available to members of Congress who want to pay their legal fees with other people's money. They can also use their campaign accounts and many do.”

Claiming he's been accused of things he "absolutely did not do" the senator has vowed to fight on. So will we. Whether calling for Charlie Rangel's resignation or spotlighting David Vitter’s deplorable behavior, CREW will keep on challenging elected officials who continue to place their own interests above those of the country.

Who says Friday the 13th brings only bad news? Thanks to the junior senator from Nevada, today more than ever, we know that CREW is definitely on the right track!

Thanks John!

View all our related documents here.

.

Timing is everything.

After sitting dormant for more than a decade, the House Ethics Committee has roared to life by holding two of the most senior members’ feet to the fire for some pretty serious ethical violations. But one has to wonder — why is the committee acting only now?

To be clear, Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) are in a mess of their own making, and the Ethics Committee is right to charge them. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has long argued that both these members need to be held accountable for their misconduct, should they be found to have committed these violations.

But policing Congress and making sure members of both parties behave in an ethical manner should be an apolitical affair. By holding ethics hearings this fall, right before the midterm election, the ethics process looks political. That serves no one’s interest.

Let’s examine what we know, and when we knew it. In September 2008, Rangel himself asked the House Ethics Committee to investigate the numerous allegations of ethical violations swirling around him all summer — that he had been improperly soliciting donations for the City College of New York’s aptly named Rangel Center, using official congressional letterhead.

The congressman had also failed to pay taxes on rental income from a Dominican Republic villa; maintained four rent-controlled apartments, one used as a campaign office, and submitted numerous error-ridden personal financial disclosure reports.

As for Waters, during the fiscal meltdown at the end of the Bush administration, she used her influence to reach out to then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and demand TARP funding for OneUnited, a bank in which her husband had a financial interest. What’s more, she appointed her grandson, who doubles as her chief of staff, as the point person on this issue.

Treasury officials were reportedly fuming in March 2009, when they learned of Waters’ financial interest in OneUnited. As far as cases go, this is not complicated. Waters appears to have abused her position to advance her personal financial interest. The Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) agreed, and referred the matter on to the Ethics Committee in June of last year.

Given that the Ethics Committee was made aware of Rangel’s violations no later than September 2008 and Waters’ by June 2009, why is the committee making its findings public now?

To avoid politicization, the Ethics Committee does not accept complaints within 60 days of an election. Rangel’s and Waters’ ethics hearings, which cannot start before mid-September at the earliest, are certain to extend into this 60-day window and will undoubtedly effect the midterm elections.

With control of the House likely up for grabs, some -- including Rangel -- have said that Republicans on the Ethics Committee have refused to reach a settlement with Rangel specifically because of a desire to focus national attention on Democrats’ ethics problems and so gain an edge in the election.

But the politicization of the ethics process jeopardizes its legitimacy and undermines its credibility. In the 1990s, ethics charges were filed simply to score political points. In an effort to step back, both parties agreed to a truce, and no ethics complaints were filed.

This left members largely unaccountable -- no matter how egregious their conduct. It led to the scandals involving former House majority leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) and super lobbyist Jack Abramoff, moving ethics back to the front burner.

Intentional or not, releasing charges against Rangel and Waters so close to the mid-terms lends credence to those who assert that the charges are political. The timing undermines the Ethics Committee’s already weak credibility, and jeopardizes the legitimacy of the ethics process. As a result, we may see members reluctant to buy in to a process they view as a politically motivated. Already, we have heard members of both parties call for the OCE to be dismantled, or at least to have its (limited) power severely reduced.

No organization has called more loudly than CREW for Rangel and Waters to answer for their conduct. In fact, many other members -- including Reps. Pete Visclosky (D-Ind.), Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.) and Don Young (R-Alaska) -- should similarly be called out for misconduct.

But in a world where timing is everything, the timing of these hearings does not serve the interests of justice -- or the American people.

Melanie Sloan is CREW's Executive Director. This post was cross-posted on Politico.com.

.

Last Friday, the New York Times reported that with the upcoming departure of White House ethics and transparency “czar” Norm Eisen – who soon heads to Prague as our ambassador to the Czech Republic – the White House has revamped its ethics team by adding new Domestic Policy Council member Steven P. Croley and assigning overall leadership responsibility to White House Counsel Bob Bauer. In the wake of this announcement a number of leading NGOs have questioned the wisdom of these changes, suggesting they will weaken, not strengthen, the President’s vision for a more ethical and transparent government. We agree.

To be clear, CREW has not always agreed with this White House’s approach to both ethics and transparency issues. We have been among the first to criticize its demonization of lobbyists and the slow progress in changing actual agency practices under the Freedom of Information Act and other information statutes. But we have lauded the decision to have a highly placed official within the White House Counsel’s Office with close ties to President Obama take the lead on these issues, a move that proved to be more than mere symbolism. Those of us in the access community know that Norm Eisen will take our calls, listen to and take seriously our suggestions, complaints, and criticisms. And we do not question his commitment to the president’s ideals of a more ethical and transparent government. Mr. Eisen has labored hard to make these ideals a reality, and while much work remains real progress has been achieved.

With White House Counsel Bob Bauer at the helm, however, we have good reason to question whether this course will continue. As the president’s top legal advisor, Mr. Bauer’s plate already is quite full and he can hardly be expected to devote the same energy as has Mr. Eisen on transparency and ethics matters. We at CREW certainly have no expectation Mr. Bauer will be able to take our calls, respond to our frequent emails, or grant us the audience Mr. Eisen so willingly provided. As for new addition Steven P. Croley, his credentials may be impeccable but the transfer of some of Mr. Eisen’s portfolio to him leaves the White House Counsel’s Office with less, not more authority, and adds another bureaucratic level to the process.

Some have cynically suggested these changes are calculated to back-burner issues that have been a mixed bag for this administration, drawing as much criticism as praise. In our view, taking the full-time responsibilities of a high-level White House official and divvying them up suggests ethics, transparency and government reform will get substantially less attention, not more.

.

Seeking an end to case dismissals without rationale or explanation, today in U.S. District Court CREW filed suit (.pdf) against the Federal Election Commission (FEC). 

Cases in front of the commission, which his made up of an equal number of Republicans and Democrats, often result in a 3-3 deadlock with no explanation provided to the complainants.  Deprived of any rationale for their decision, the 60 day window for filing a suit in federal court often expires without any review of the decision taking place.

Said CREW Executive Director Melanie Sloan:

The FEC is deliberately manipulating the law to conceal its decisions in the hopes of running out the clock on any potential appeals of its decisions. This is wrong, and it must stop.

Read the press release here

View the full complaint in CREW v. FEC (.pdf)