In outrageous fashion, the House Ethics Committee noticed a public meeting to consider proposed amendments to the Committee Rules five minutes before the meeting convened. 

May 18, 2012

Dear Committee  Member:

The Chairman with the concurrence of the Ranking Member under clause 2(g)(3)(B) of House Rule XI, has scheduled a public meeting of the Committee to be held in Room H-122 The Capitol on Friday, May 18, 2012, at 12:20 p.m. to consider proposed amendments to the Committee Rules.

Sincerely,

Joanne White

Administrative Staff Director

Committee on Ethics

If this was as pro forma as the Committee now claims, why not announce the meeting a couple of days ahead of time?  Or is the Ethics Committee just so slavishly devoted to secrecy that it can't help itself?  Your U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Ethics...never ceasing to amaze.

That’s why today CREW and dozens of other good governance groups and international civil society organizations sent a letter urging members of Congress to co-sponsor and pass the Incorporation Transparency and Law Enforcement Assistance Act (S. 1483/H.R. 3416).

The letter states:

Increased corporate transparency would curb corruption and tax evasion, promote an equitable market economy, reduce the opacity of corporate campaign contributions, help ensure a fair and level playing field for small- and medium-sized businesses, foster global development and enhance national security…

Investigations continue to reveal that American and foreign terrorists, narco-traffickers, arms dealers, corrupt foreign officials, tax evaders, individuals targeted for financial sanctions and other criminals easily and regularly set up U.S. shell companies, without providing any information about who owns or controls such companies...This enables criminals to disguise their identities behind the anonymity provided to U.S. corporations and launder dirty money through the U.S. financial system.

In short, these shell corporations undermine not only U.S. laws aimed at combating money laundering and tax evasion, but international efforts to stem global corruption as well. 

The legislation simply requires that companies disclose their ultimate owners at the time of incorporation, thereby making it much harder for corrupt politicians, tax evaders and others from hiding behind the anonymity afforded to U.S. corporations.  The U.S. shouldn’t be a playground for foreign and domestic corrupt financial practices.  This legislation will shine a light on the identities of who really owns these shell corporations and make it easier for law enforcement to bring them to justice.  

Ms. Nuhfer, a fundraising consultant whom Rep. Rivera once described as his girlfriend, has been under investigation as part of a potential kickback scheme involving her firm, Communication Solutions, and Rep. Rivera. Political campaigns and committees tied to Rep. Rivera have paid Communication Solutions at least $817,000 since 2006, and investigators are looking to see if any of that money found its way back into Rep. Rivera’s pocket. The FBI has also interviewed Ms. Nuhfer about payments from Flagler Dog Track, a company that hired Rep. Rivera to promote slot machines in Miami but made payments to a company owned by his godmother.

The ethical cloud hanging over Ms. Nuhfer doesn’t seem to bother Sen. Rubio. His campaign committee paid more than $112,000 in payments to Communications Solutions in the 2010 election cycle, and Ms. Nuhfer is still fundraising for the senator. In December 2011, Ms. Nuhfer raised more than $200,000 for Sen. Rubio at a swanky downtown Miami hotel luncheon.

It’s one thing to stand by an old friend. It is another matter, however, for an ambitious politician to have his finances enmeshed with those of someone under investigation for shady financial transactions.

We certainly hope that means any reservations can be ironed out. The DATA Act is the kind of transformative transparency legislation that makes good governance groups like CREW salivate. It would allow the public and watchdog organizations far greater ease in tracking government spending by requiring uniform online reporting of all federal agency spending, thereby creating a valuable tool in identifying waste, fraud and abuse.

The concerns expressed by Controller Werfel seem innocuous enough. Mr. Werfel said the administration still has questions about the new presidentially appointed commission that would oversee agency efforts and the impact of new reporting requirements on state and local governments, universities and businesses. While it’s unclear from the hearing how large an obstacle these concerns are, CREW agrees with Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA), who noted why the DATA Act is sorely needed. While the administration has done an excellent job in making federal spending under the 2009 Recovery Act a model, Rep. Issa said such transparency has yet to spread throughout federal agencies because “officials have a lethargic view toward making this transition.”

The DATA Act is an important bill that deserves passage. Doing so will be a significant step towards creating a federal government that is committed to holding itself accountable, accessible and transparent. We hope the reservations expressed at yesterday’s hearing merely signals further cooperation in seeing this valuable legislation become law.

Listening to newly minted Republican nominee Richard Mourdock’s own words – that “bipartisanship ought to consist of Democrats coming to the Republican point of view,” and that the “highlight of politics, frankly, is to inflict my opinion on someone else on a microphone or in front of a camera,” – makes Sen. Lugar’s criticism of the candidate’s "unrelenting partisan mindset,” seem mild.

Far be it from CREW to second guess the Hoosier state’s choice to represent its interests in the U.S. Senate, but we’re fairly certain that defining bipartisanship as “they have to come our way” is this is the last thing Washington needs.  This “my way or the highway” approach serves nobody’s interests and exacerbates the partisan gridlock Americans have come to know and loathe. 

Sen. Lugar has long been a model of bipartisanship and moderation in Washington.  His record of reaching across the aisle to address domestic and international problems ranging from job creation, deficit reduction, energy security, agriculture reform, and nuclear threat reduction is proof positive some issues needn’t be mired down by electoral considerations.  His approach to policy issues extended to his views on the presidential judicial appointment process.  Apparently Sen. Lugar’s “aye” vote for Supreme Court nominees Sotomayor and Kagan was just too much to stomach.  As one commentator notes today:

The most important and alarming facet of Lugar’s defeat, and a factor whose importance is being overlooked at the moment, is one of the things Mourdock cited against him: Lugar voted to confirm two of Obama’s Supreme Court nominees. Obviously, Lugar would not have chosen to nominate an Elena Kagan or a Sonia Sotomayor. But he was following a longstanding practice of extending presidents wide ideological latitude on their Supreme Court picks. In the absence of corruption, lack of qualifications, or unusual ideological extremism, Democratic presidents have always been allowed to pick liberal justices, and Republican presidents conservative ones. That’s not a law. It’s just a social norm.

But the social norms that previously kept the parties from exercising power have fallen one by one. Under Obama’s presidency, Republicans have gone to unprecedented lengths to block completely uncontroversial appointments, paralyzing the government and using the power to paralyze government to nullify duly passed laws. It is bringing on an approaching crisis of American government.

Sen. Lugar’s entire concession statement is worth reading, but notably, he stated:

The truth is that the headwinds in this race were abundantly apparent long before Richard Mourdock announced his candidacy. One does not highlight such headwinds publically when one is waging a campaign. But I knew that I would face an extremely strong anti-incumbent mood following a recession. I knew that my work with then-Senator Barack Obama would be used against me, even if our relationship were overhyped. I also knew from the races in 2010 that I was a likely target of Club for Growth, FreedomWorks and other Super Pacs dedicated to defeating at least one Republican as a purification exercise to enhance their influence over other Republican legislators.

As for the new Republican nominee, Sen. Lugar said:

If Mr. Mourdock is elected, I want him to be a good Senator. But that will require him to revise his stated goal of bringing more partisanship to Washington. He and I share many positions, but his embrace of an unrelenting partisan mindset is irreconcilable with my philosophy of governance and my experience of what brings results for Hoosiers in the Senate. In effect, what he has promised in this campaign is reflexive votes for a rejectionist orthodoxy and rigid opposition to the actions and proposals of the other party. His answer to the inevitable roadblocks he will encounter in Congress is merely to campaign for more Republicans who embrace the same partisan outlook. He has pledged his support to groups whose prime mission is to cleanse the Republican party of those who stray from orthodoxy as they see it.

This is not conducive to problem solving and governance. And he will find that unless he modifies his approach, he will achieve little as a legislator. Worse, he will help delay solutions that are totally beyond the capacity of partisan majorities to achieve.

Sadly, each election cycle there are fewer and fewer politicians who share Sen. Lugar’s world view contributing to the near total dysfunction in which Washington finds itself.  No wonder Congress has record-low approval ratings.

The evidence unveiled last week by Great Britain’s House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee ("Commons Committee") speaks for itself. Among other things, the Commons Committee found:

Rupert Murdoch "did not take steps to become fully informed about phone hacking … turned a blind eye and exhibited willful blindness to what was going on in his companies and publications."

James Murdoch exhibited a "lack of curiosity ... willful ignorance even," and "astonish[ment] that James Murdoch did not seek more information or ask to see the evidence and counsel’s opinion" after being on an out-of-court settlement of a privacy claim based on the phone hacking committed by a News Corp. journalist.

Claims by both Rupert and James Murdoch that any phone hacking had been done by "one 'rogue reporter'" surprising and unbelievable.

And perhaps most damaging, the Commons Committee found "[t]he notion that … Rupert Murdoch had no inkling that wrongdoing and questionable practice was widespread at the News of the World is simply not credible."

The illegal actions of News Corp. are not limited only to the other side of the pond. As our letter details, News Corp. stands accused of phone hacking Americans – including the voicemails of 9/11 victims – and rampant computer breaches of an industry competitor they sought to “destroy.” Forthcoming lawsuits by alleged U.S. victims may reveal further misconduct.

Under U.S. law, broadcast frequencies may be used only by licensees of good “character” who will serve “the public interest” and speak with “candor.” ⁱ   “Significant character deficiencies” may warrant disqualification from holding a license.” ⁱⁱ   In assessing such character, the FCC may consider past conduct, including non-broadcast conduct, ⁱⁱⁱ whether any misconduct is isolated or represents a pattern of misbehavior, ^iv and lack of candor. ^v   Under this standard, the evidence known to date makes clear both Rupert and James Murdoch lack the requisite character to retain News Corp.’s 27 American broadcast licenses.

Admittedly, revoking a broadcast license is a rarely invoked penalty, and Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Jules Genachowski has stated previously the FCC will not get involved in the matter. Given the magnitude of misbehavior, his position is untenable. Holding broadcast licenses is a privilege not a right, and the FCC’s character test becomes meaningless if not applied in the face of such patently egregious misconduct.

Our friends at CREDO Action have a petition calling on the FCC to revoke the broadcast licenses held by Rupert Murdoch's media empire. If you’d like to add your voice, click here.

When Rep. Broun first mentioned the bank loan, he was attempting to push back against CREW’s Family Affair report, which found he had collected $28,756 in loan interest from his campaign despite telling the Federal Election Commission (FEC) he wouldn’t charge any.  Those interest payments, he insisted, actually went to the bank.

CREW then filed a complaint against Rep. Broun's campaign with the FEC, pointing out Rep. Broun had illegally concealed the source of more than $300,000 in loans.  After the complaint was filed, Broun’s then-campaign treasurer Tim Echols said he outsourced the FEC filings and couldn’t remember where the series of six loans came from.   Later, Broun spokeswoman Meredith Griffanti claimed the confusion was all the result of “an inexperienced staffer who made a simple error when it came to providing details about the loan.”  Of course, there were multiple loans reported separately over the course of a year, and the mistake was repeated on more than 30 separate FEC filings, so the simple mistake actually seems pretty complicated.

Ms. Griffanti said the loan was a home mortgage from Athens First Bank & Trust, with interest charged at “the standard market rate at the time” – whatever that was.  This also doesn’t explain why there appear to have been several different loans.  In addition, Ms. Griffanti promised the campaign was “taking the necessary steps to file amendments and correct the whole oversight.”  It must be harder to figure out than she thought, because weeks later, we’re still waiting for those amendments.

Since CREW filed its complaint, Rep. Broun has had the time to call for the resignation of the head of the Transportation Security Administration, meet the Georgia Farm Bureau, host a “Grants and Small Business Expo,”  and even unveil the winner of a Congressional Art Competition at the local mall. Perhaps he can find some time in his busy schedule to come clean with the FEC about his campaign finances.

In light of the attention surrounding Stephen Colbert’s Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow, it appears the number of Colbert-inspired super PACs may now have exceeded those that have actually raised and spent real money to influence your vote.  Here are some of the more entertainingly-named ones that caught our eye:

Buck Up to Beef Up America

Concerned Moms and Dads of America

America's Super PAC for the Permanent Elimination of America’s Super PACs

Americans for a More American America

Utes for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow

Penn Staters for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow

Milwaukeeans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow

It’s good to see someone having fun with super PACs, because it certainly adds a little humor to our jobs.  But one thing is for certain: the feckless FEC is no laughing matter.  As part of our successful “We the People” petition, we called on the president to replace five members of the FEC whose terms have expired.  It has been almost three months now and we’re still waiting for a response. 

The pervasive effects of super PACs are just a few reasons why the FEC needs to step up its game in the post-Citizens United world.

With all that said and in the spirit of Colbert, if you were to start a super PAC, what would it be?

Enjoy your weekend everyone.

Some agencies are simply abysmal at records management. The worst two, with a score of only 3 out of 100 possible points, were the Postal Regulatory Commission and the Marine Mammal Commission. On the other hand, the Department of the Interior’s Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement was the top agency with a score of 99, followed by a 98 score for two other Interior agencies, the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Office fo the Special Trustee for American Indians.

Read the 2011 Records Management Self-Assessment Report

Managing email and other electronic records continues to be a serious problem, including a lack of understanding of electronic records by agency officials. Over 80 percent of agencies still use "print and file" as one of their methods for preserving email, with another 49 percent using backup tapes. Only 19 percent used using an electronic records management system or records management application to capture email. In addition, many agency respondents did not know or understand key terms related to electronic records. Agencies also increasingly use social media and cloud computing, but most have not developed policies for managing records in these environments.

The new report comes in the middle of a push by the White House to institute better records management throughout the federal government. Last November, President Obama issued a presidential memo on managing government records requiring all agencies to provide NARA reports describing their plans improving their records management programs, especially electronic records. Those reports were submitted in March, and NARA and OMB are now working on a Records Management Directive that will direct agencies to take specific steps to reform and improve records management policies and practices.

CREW again applauds the White House for taking this important step, and NARA for its continued commitment to records management. At this point, however, the bottom line remains the same. The government’s continued failure to comply with its record keeping obligations leaves the public with a massive gap in our historical record and jeopardizes public accountability. The new report again shows this shameful neglect and underscores the need for focused attention on this critical issue.

The FEC found the improper donations came from more than 100 individuals.  In two cases, the campaign illegally accepted corporate contributions.  In addition, the Rubio campaign accepted nearly $26,000 for the primary race after the primary election was already over, a real no-no.  

The $8,000 fine is truly inadequate when considered in light of Sen. Rubio’s offenses.  $210,000 in illegal donations isn’t chump change.  True, the amount in contention is roughly 1% of the total $21 million Sen. Rubio raised for the 2010 campaign, but it was money the Rubio campaign shouldn’t have had in the first place.  They have to refund it now, but the money probably was pretty useful during a heated campaign, and the $8,000 fine means it probably cost them less than borrowing the money and paying interest would have. What’s to deter other campaigns from performing similarly sloppy auditing when all they have to worry about from the ineffectual FEC is a slap on the wrist, if you can even call it that? 

CREW has long lambasted the inadequacy of the fines levied against guilty parties. Former Senator Bob Kerrey (D-NE) once noted “the FEC … might levy a $5,000 fine on me three years after the fact … I can raise that in a single night in a campaign event … so that’s hardly what I would call a deterrent against illegal behavior.”  What was true then is even truer now.  Ironically, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, also known as "McCain-Feingold," dramatically increased the monetary penalties for the kind of violations Sen. Rubio’s campaign committed.  Unfortunately, the FEC rarely seeks anything close to the maximum penalty. This stems partly from the partisan makeup of the FEC – three Democrats and three Republicans – which results in a deadlock on nearly every issue. 

It remains to be seen if Sen. Rubio will learn from this infraction, or decide instead that the financial advantages from bending the rules outweigh any de minimis penalty the FEC may impose.  Past practice suggests we can expect more of the same.  According to the Miami Herald, while Sen. Rubio was serving in the Florida House of Representatives, “he failed to disclose a generous home loan from a bank in 2006” and was later found to have “double-billed taxpayers and the Republican Party of Florida for about $3,000 in flights that he later sorted out.” 

If he hasn’t done so already, it’s well past time for Sen. Rubio to hire a new accountant to improve his campaign’s “internal controls,” as required by the settlement.  In the days ahead, CREW will continue scrutinizing Rubio’s financial disclosures with even greater skepticism. 

We think it’s the right thing to do, which is why today CREW and other campaign reform advocates joined together in asking the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to approve an opinion – in response to Advisory Opinion Request 2012-17 – to provide enhanced opportunities for millions of Americans to participate in the political process by texting a campaign contribution to a political candidate.

Read the letter to the FEC in support of text message donations.

Here’s why.  Charities have long enabled concerned individuals to text their donations, whether texting “FOOD” to give money to UNICEF or “AFRICA” to support the International Rescue Committee.  Several state and local jurisdictions have already begun to implement guidelines to allow for text-based campaign donations, and it’s time the FEC allow federal campaigns to do the same.

Most importantly, doing so allows small donors – who continue to experience a diminished role in the political process – to have a greater voice. For example, as our letter states, in the 2010 elections Senate candidates received only about 11.5% of their total funding from donors contributing less than $200.  House candidates on average received no more than 9% of total campaign money from small donors, and 2012 is on track to produce a similar trend.

In the era of Super PACs and corporate special interest spending, CREW believes the small donors, unencumbered by the appearance of expecting any kind of quid pro quo arrangement, will be critical to root out big money in politics.  More than 30 million Americans have texted contributions to charitable causes and there is ample reason to believe many would similarly text a donation to a political candidate.

The value of allowing text-based political contributions goes beyond beefing up campaign coffers and amplifying the voices of small donors.  Critically, it allows candidates and members of Congress spend more time focused on the issues and less time dialing for dollars.  In the end, this would be a win-win for both small donors and campaigns.  The FEC has made it easier than ever before for large donors to influence our elections.  It will be interesting to see if the commission shows the same deference to small donors.

Tomorrow the FCC will vote on a proposal to make local television stations post information about political advertising on a central website. This is a great proposal that CREW strongly supports. With so much secret political spending by shadowy outside groups flooding our airwaves, it is more important than ever that we have some information regarding the identities of those who are trying to influence our votes. Broadcasters already are required to keep “public inspection files” that we can theoretically access. In addition to information on children’s programing and agreements with other stations to share services, these files include the names of all those who buys political ads along with how much they paid when the ads ran.

But the files are kept in file cabinets available only at each individual network station. This makes the files accessible only through an arduous and time-consuming process of walking into the station and rifling through reams of documents under the watchful eyes of a station supervisor. Converting these files into pdf documents posted online available to anyone with computer access would dramatically increase the light on political spending.

Like so many things in Washington these days, the decision to make these allegedly publicly available documents online seems like a no brainer. But the National Association of Broadcasters, a powerful special interest group, has fought tooth and nail too keep these files virtually hidden. Why? Some have suggested it is because if broadcasters are required to make such information easily available online for all to see, the public will finally learn in almost real-time the rates those broadcasters are charging political candidates. Candidates are supposed to be charged the lowest customary rates as a condition of their monopoly of the airwaves, but broadcasters are notorious for demanding outrageous prices, particularly close to elections. Because the prices are virtually kept under lock and key, candidates have no idea they are being bilked.

Unlike the FEC, which is mired in deadlock after deadlock because of the 3-3 partisan divide, the FCC is composed of three commissioners, thwarting any possibility of a deadlock. Chairman Julius Genachowski – the main backer of the proposal – is rightly enthusiastic about making political spending transparent for the public interest. Commissioner Robert McDowell, unfortunately, has already indicated he’s backing the broadcasters, thereby keeping the public in the dark. That means all eyes are on Commissioner Mignon Clyburn, who recently told the broadcast industry her office is still open to compromise.

Approving this rule to require TV stations to post political advertising data online is not a panacea, but it will be a valuable tool allowing the public and good governance groups like CREW to keep an eye on who is spending money to influence our elections. We’ll let you know what happens tomorrow.

CREW has now learned the Senate Judiciary Committee threatened a subpoena if OMB refused to clear the recommendations and OMB blinked – a little. Rather than the original recommendations, OGIS sent Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy and Ranking Member Charles Grassley a “report” laying out OGIS’s recommendations, expressed in policy, not legislative, terms.

Read OGIS's letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee and their recommendations.

We will never know how this report differs from the recommendations OGIS submitted to OMB. But the newest OGIS report raises six challenges and recommendations on how to address them in fairly detailed terms, and will likely appease Congress for now.

In the long term, however, OMB’s position – that OGIS is not required by statute to provide Congress with recommendations – raises some very disturbing concerns. Perhaps most troubling, it suggests OGIS does not, in fact, enjoy the independence Congress deemed critical for OGIS to fulfill its mission as a neutral, third-party arbiter of FOIA disputes. And it reinforces what many of us have been hearing for months, namely that DOJ’s Office of Information Policy has been trying to undermine OGIS – which it views as a threat – and has enlisted the help of OMB in this effort. We applaud Senators Leahy and Grassley for their refusal to back down and hope we can count on them to continue to fight for OGIS’s independence.

Originally posted on The Hill's Congress Blog - 4.18.12

The revelation that the General Services Administration (GSA) spent $823,000 on a conference in Las Vegas exposed waste on a grand scale – the colossal waste of time by members of Congress rushing to investigate what’s already been investigated and punish those already punished.

We all know what happened at the conference. Government employees hired a clown. They hired a mentalist (albeit not a very good one, since he apparently failed to predict the media and congressional frenzy that would follow). They produced videos gloating about their own extravagance.

But even if one assumes that there should have been no conference at all, and every penny was wasted, surely there are far better uses for Congress’ time than “investigating” $823,000 in waste, an amount aptly characterized by NPR’s On the Media as “less than a rounding error in the budget of the executive branch.”

For starters, Congress could examine the bureaucracy the government built in response to 9/11, described in 2010 by The Washington Post as “so large, so unwieldy and so secretive that no one knows how much money it costs, how many people it employs, how many programs exist within it or exactly how many agencies do the same work.”

“No one” included the secretary of defense at the time, Robert Gates, who told the Post: “I can’t get a number on how many contractors work for the Office of the Secretary of Defense.”

A year before the Post series, Retired Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan told CBS News: "With good financial oversight we could find $48 billion in loose change in [the Pentagon] without having to hit the taxpayers."

Not only does this suggest astronomical waste, there is something else no one really knows: Has all that spending made America more secure? Congress might want to try to find out.

But if that’s too much to ask, perhaps Congress could start smaller. The GSA conference cost less than 1.2 percent of the amount that seven members of Congress won in earmarks for organizations that hired those same members of Congress after they left office, a real scandal that CREW exposed earlier this year.

Yet somehow, the conference is deemed worthy of at least four congressional hearings. By a Fox News estimate, an average congressional hearing costs $125,000. So the hearings themselves may waste more than half as much money as the cost of the entire conference.

Of course one might argue that the issue isn’t the cost, but the cover-up. Except there was no cover-up.  The “scandal” was not exposed by reporters meeting sources in parking garages. No one even had to file a Freedom of Information Act request. The waste was exposed by the GSA’s own inspector general.  Before anyone could demand that those responsible be fired – they were fired. And before anyone could say the problem goes all the way to the top, the person at the top, GSA Director Martha Johnson, resigned.

Of course there is a lot that made this conference a target that’s hard to resist, including a video in which a GSA employee sings about never being a target of the inspector general.

But members of Congress are paid to devote their time and effort to serious issues. In fact, they’re paid a total of more than $94 million per year. That’s more than 114 times the cost of the GSA conference.

They should be putting their time, and our money, to better use.

That is why today CREW and other good governance groups urged the Senate to promptly pass S. 219, originally sponsored by Senator Jon Tester (D-MT) with 23 cosponsors.  The legislation is scheduled to be examined next week during a Senate Rules and Administration hearing.  As our letter states:

The exception from filing electronic reports provided for Senate candidates makes no sense, has no legitimate basis and is indefensible.  Yet despite the fact that there are no credible arguments  against this legislation, efforts to pass the bill have been blocked for years by the threat of filibusters, “poison pill” amendments and other obstructionist tactics.

What do Senate candidates have to hide?  As we have seen far too often in Congress, lawmakers spend far too much time and energy looking after themselves, rather than the public interest.  The only purpose the exception from electronic filing for Senate candidates possibly serves is to deprive the public of timely and meaningful public information to which they are entitled.  As we point out in our letter, this is of particular concern during periods close to an election.  The long period of time between when Senate candidates file their paper reports and when those reports are transferred to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and put into a searchable electronic database for public consumption means the public does not have access to this information in time to consider it before they vote.

This should be a no-brainer for the Senate.  We applaud Senator Tester for his strong leadership on this issue.  CREW urges the Senate Rules Committee to report this bill and the full chamber to pass this legislation promptly. 

CREW’s research shows the payday loan industry is on course to donate more than ever to federal candidates this election cycle. Payday lenders’ political action committees (PACs), trade associations, and employees have contributed at least $1.32 million so far, according to campaign contributions tracked by Political Moneyline. That is already almost equal to the $1.5 million payday lenders contributed over the course of the entire 2010 election cycle. So how, exactly, are payday lenders expecting to collect interest on this investment?

In Payday Lenders Pay More, a 2011 report on the payday lending industry’s influence efforts, CREW showed how the biggest players in the payday loan industry ramped up lobbying spending and campaign contributions during the 2008 and 2010 election cycles. Payday lenders waged a multi-million-dollar war to beat back federal regulation of their predatory industry.

The effort was partly successful, but payday lenders lost a key battle. Congress gave the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) jurisdiction over payday lenders, and key players at the bureau have signaled plans to actively regulate it.

Now, payday lenders think they can elect a president and a Congress who will help them ward off the CFPB after all. Filings by Restore Our Future, a super PAC that has already spent millions of dollars supporting Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, show at least $162,500 in contributions from payday lenders and their parent companies. We’re sure it’s a coincidence that Mr. Romney has promised to repeal the legislation creating the CFPB.

So far this cycle, the top three recipients of campaign contributions from payday lenders are Republicans with key roles in regulating the financial services industry who have demanded changes to the CFPB that consumer advocates say could weaken the new regulator. Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), the vice chair of the House Financial Services Committee, has received $36,500 in donations so far. Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), the ranking member of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, took in $32,000. Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL), chair of the House Financial Services Committee, got $29,000.

Our 2011 Report

Campaign contributions aren’t the only way payday lenders are attempting to slip the regulatory yoke. Payday lending companies and industry trade associations reported spending roughly $4.46 million lobbying the federal government in 2011, mainly lobbying over how the CFPB would be set up. The industry hasn’t forgotten about the role states play in regulating it, either. Payday lenders appear to be actively courting state legislators through the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a corporate front group that pushes business-friendly bills on state legislators.

Earlier this month, the Columbus Dispatch reported that payday lender Cash America was among companies secretly contributing to an ALEC “scholarship fund” used to pay expenses for Ohio legislators traveling to ALEC conferences. The Arizona Republic last year reported that payday lender ACE Cash Express fed legislators a “posh” dinner at a fancy French restaurant while they were attending an ALEC conference in New Orleans.

All this adds up to an old-fashioned influence campaign meant to allow payday lenders to keep doing business the way they always have: by preying on the poor and desperate with high-interest, high-fee loans that are nearly impossible to pay off. That’s what happened to Tyrone Newman. After a year of being unemployed, he got a job, and overspent to give his family a real Christmas to celebrate. As the Washington Post reported, he took out $1,500 in payday loans – at an interest rate of 651 percent. His boss bailed him out, saving him from paying back a tab that would have cost him $18,000 otherwise. Most of this predatory industry’s victims aren’t as lucky.

Originally ran in The National Law Journal - 4.16.12

Several weeks ago, Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. marked Sunshine Week, the annual celebration of government transparency, with a keynote address touting his agency's commitment to openness and asserting that its work over the past three years has produced "meaningful, measurable progress" in improving government compliance with the Freedom of Information Act. As attorneys who each have more than 30 years' experience litigating FOIA cases in the federal courts, our assessment is decidedly less rosy.

In 2009, during his first Sunshine Week as attorney general, Holder issued a memorandum promising, among other things, that DOJ would defend agency decisions to withhold requested information only when disclosure clearly was prohibited by law or would produce actual harm. This significant change reversed an earlier directive by former Attorney General John Ashcroft requiring DOJ attorneys to aggressively defend virtually all agency denials of FOIA requests. Holder said his new policy was intended to effectuate the pro-transparency proclamation issued by President Obama on his first full day in office: to administer the FOIA "with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails."

But DOJ's conduct since these pronouncements leaves us wondering whether Obama and Holder forgot to send their directives to the DOJ attorneys responsible for litigating FOIA cases on behalf of federal agencies. From cases involving records on environmental issues, to those detailing criminal investigations of members of Congress, our experience suggests there is no agency withholding DOJ lawyers won't defend. A recent study conducted by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University, in which researchers were "unable…to identify a single instance of the DOJ declining to defend a FOIA withholding case," supports this conclusion. The breadth of situations in which DOJ will fight to maintain official secrecy includes:

• A refusal to release logs of White House visits prior to September 2009, despite the policy decision of the Obama White House to post online the vast majority of its visitor logs as of September 2009, based on a claim the records are presidential and not subject to the FOIA. The case is now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, where the Obama administration has filed a brief almost identical to that filed by the Bush administration.
• A refusal by DOJ to release records explaining its failure to prosecute numerous members of Congress, despite significant evidence of their criminal misconduct. Now in litigation, DOJ claims the privacy interests of these very public figures mean the agency need not even look for and identify responsive records.
• An unprecedented refusal by the Treasury Department to grant the Center for Auto Safety a fee waiver for a FOIA request seeking access to e-mail communications between Treasury and the auto industry explaining why the taxpayer-funded Chrysler and GM bailouts provided the auto companies complete immunity from liability for defective cars. When the agency demanded $38,000 in copying fees, the group was forced to sue.
• A refusal by the CIA to release large portions of an internal history of the 1961 Bay of Pigs operation, completed in 1981, describing events occurring more than 50 years ago. The CIA asserted the document was a "draft" and disclosure would harm its "deliberative process." DOJ lawyers are aggressively defending the agency in court.
• A refusal by the National Institutes of Health to disclose any documents explaining why the agency refused to act in response to a complaint of widespread violations of the Animal Welfare Act by a NIH-funded research facility. NIH claimed it could "neither confirm nor deny" whether it had generated a single document in response to the complaint without violating the "personal privacy" of the researchers involved, even though agency regulations provide it "will" investigate all such complaints. A lawsuit had to be filed.

While recent statistics suggest agencies overall are decreasing their reliance on the FOIA's exemptions to withhold documents, DOJ is an outlier exception. According to a recent Associated Press analysis, DOJ has increased its reliance on "privilege" claims to withhold more documents describing its behind-the-scenes decision-making process than it did the previous year. And the same DOJ team the attorney general praised for its "outstanding leadership" in fostering transparency issued proposed regulations authorizing law enforcement agencies to falsely tell FOIA requesters they don't possess certain records when, in fact, they do.

Three years ago, we rejoiced when President Obama re-established important open-government tenets, and his new attorney general promised DOJ would vigorously enforce the law's public disclosure requirements. Unfortunately, we are still waiting to see that promise fulfilled.

The same can’t be said for several groups abusing their tax-exempt status to subsidize partisan political activity.

Tax-exempt organizations are required to tell the IRS how much they spend on political activities. This information is critical to establishing whether such organizations are complying with their charitable status. Reporting inaccurate information can result in civil penalties and criminal prosecution.

CREW has asked the IRS to investigate several cases:

• Americans for Tax Reform

  ATR, founded by anti-tax zealot Grover Norquist, reported wildly disparate spending on political activities in 2010 to two different federal agencies. Norquist told the Federal Election Commission (FEC) that ATR spent more than $4.2 million on such activity. But the figure he gave the IRS, on a form Mr. Norquist signed under penalty of perjury, was less than half that amount. Norquist is welcome to crusade against taxes as much as he wants. But as long as the tax laws are on the books, he has to follow them just like everybody else.

• The Commission on Hope, Growth and Opportunity

  CHGO is another outfit that can’t seem to keep its stories straight. In its application for tax-exempt status, submitted in 2010 under penalty of perjury, CHGO claimed it had no plans to spend any money on elections. But just a few weeks after winning tax-exempt status, CHGO started running millions of dollars worth of ads advocating the defeat of Democratic members of the House of Representatives. It appears CHGO has done little or nothing else, a flagrant violation of tax law. CHGO also didn’t bother to report its ad spending to the FEC. That, too, is illegal. 

• Americans for Job Security

  AJS claims tax exemption under a section of the law that applies to “business leagues, chambers of commerce…” and similar organizations. To be exempt from taxes, the group’s primary purpose cannot be political activity. But in 2010, AJS spent 72 percent of its funds on such activities. Surely -- under any interpretation of “primary purpose” – a group that spends nearly ¾ of its budget on political ads is violating the law.

As the rest of us pay our fair share and abide by our nation’s tax laws, CREW will keep pressing the IRS to make sure these organizations and others like them do the same.

It all came to a head last month while the House was considering a federal transportation bill, usually a broad bipartisan love fest because of all the pet projects tacked onto the bill for lawmakers to shower on their home districts.  But despite the fact that the Republicans hold the majority, the Republican leadership was faced with a transportation bill in shambles and the prospect the bill might fail.  In prior Congresses, this have would been the stage where party leadership and appropriations committee chairs started doling out goodies to recalcitrant members to induce an aye vote.  No longer. 

We won’t go so far as to argue earmarks would be the deus ex machina that ends all legislative paralysis, particularly during an election year.  But if history is any guide, earmarking is a powerful bargaining chip to create bipartisan consensus on federal funding that’s going to be dispersed one way or another.  So what should we make of murmurings that earmarks may be back next congressional session?  

CREW has long advocated that if earmarking is practiced, there must be real transparency and accountability in the process. Over the years, neither party's efforts at reforming the earmarking process has been completely successful.  Legislative efforts to address the systemic flaws in the practice have been either too feckless or too draconian.  The conflict over earmarks pits those members who feel strongly Congress must have the ability to control some spending for public work projects and social spending in their districts against those who view any such spending, “earmarks,” as inappropriate in any circumstance.  In the end, however, no matter how small a percentage of the budget, many Americans see earmarks as a symbol of self-serving politicians and believe their hard-earned tax dollars are being frittered away on wasteful projects, such as the Bridge to Nowhere.

But what made earmarks particularly odious in the past – the sheer lack of transparency, projects with seemingly no merit, the unseemly connection between campaign contributions and earmark recipients, etc. – need not and should not be a factor in any revival of the practice.  In the waning months of 2010, CREW convened a distinguished group of lobbyists and good governance groups to find common ground on a practical approach to the earmarking process.  The result was five principles of earmark reform:

1		To cut the cord between earmarks and campaign contributions, Congress should limit earmarks directed to campaign contributors. Limiting total contributions from the earmark beneficiary and its affiliates to no more than $5,000 would help restore public confidence.
2		To eliminate any connection between legislation and campaign contributions, legislative staff should be barred from participating in fundraising activities. The attendance of legislative staff at fundraisers suggests a connection between campaign donations and earmarks.  Further, it is awkward for staff members who might prefer to forgo such after-hours functions to decline to participate.
3		To increase transparency, Congress should create a new database of all congressional earmarks.  Information about lawmakers’ earmark requests is scattered across hundreds of web sites in a variety of formats with differing levels of details.  The funding levels for ear earmark award are listed in a chart at the end of each spending bill.  While the data is technically available, it is virtually impossible to collect, understand and analyze all of the earmark information.  Congress should create a unified, searchable, sortable and downloadable database on a public website.
4		To ensure taxpayer money has been spent appropriately, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) should randomly audit earmarks.  Because oversight is essential to maintaining integrity in the earmarking process, the GAO should develop and implement a system to audit and report to Congress regularly on programs and projects funded through earmarks.
5		To promote Congressional responsibility without stifling innovation, Members should certify earmark recipients are qualified to handle the project. Requiring certification would increase accountability for earmarks, insuring they are awarded responsibly and to entities with appropriate expertise and capability.

If a diverse coalition of government reform groups and lobbyists can come to agreement on how to reform the process, however, there is no reason Congress cannot do the same.  If lawmakers do indeed revive earmarking, adopting these common sense reforms would help restore Americans’ diminished confidence in Congress.  

If you’d like to see our 2010 panel discussion discussing these five principles for real earmark reform, see here.  See the principles in legislative format here, and Senator James Inhofe’s (R-OK.) remarks regarding our principles here.

As the lawyers might say, there are some things about this behavior that we will stipulate:

• It was loathsome. 
• It was despicable. 
• It was reprehensible. 
• It was any similar adjective you can think of.

But the idea that payments made by two longtime friends of Mr. Edwards to his mistress are "campaign contributions" deserves a few adjectives of its own: Ludicrous, absurd and stupid come immediately to mind. Also dangerous.

Read: CREW criticizes Justice Department indictment of John Edwards

Jury selection for Mr. Edwards' trial is scheduled to start today. If he is convicted, it will open the way for spurious prosecutions of people with far better moral character. At the same time, it could open the floodgates for politicians to charge personal expenses to their campaigns. That is, in fact, illegal under current law (though, as we document in our Family Affair report, some politicians find creative ways to get around this prohibition). So Mr. Edwards had every reason to believe that had he, in fact, used campaign funds to pay Rielle Hunter’s expenses, that would have been illegal.

The case brought by the Department of Justice (DOJ) boils down to this: John Edwards campaigned as a "family man." Disclosure of the affair would have tarnished that image. Therefore, the DOJ says, any money spent to cover up the affair was a campaign contribution, and everyone involved knew it.

As we explain in the brief we filed calling for the case to be dismissed, there are several problems with this, but two stand out:

• The people who gave the money were close personal friends of John Edwards before he ever ran for president.  
• The payments continued after Mr. Edwards dropped out of the presidential campaign.

In journalism, it's often said that "when there is a simple explanation and a complicated explanation, the simple explanation usually is correct." Here's the simple explanation in the Edwards case: John Edwards and his friends wanted to hide the affair from Mr. Edwards' wife and children. His conduct was deplorable – but not illegal.

Mr. Edwards also is an odd target in light of some cases on which the Justice Department has taken a pass:

• DOJ did not prosecute disgraced former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) or former Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT) for selling their influence to notorious lobbyist Jack Abramoff.  
• DOJ declined to prosecute former Sen. John Ensign (R-NV), for conspiring with his former aide to violate post-employment lobbying restrictions, or for failing to report to the Federal Election Commission a $96,000 severance payment made to his mistress after he fired her from her position on his campaign committee.

In the U.S. criminal prosecutions are based on bad conduct, not bad character. Sadly, this is a lesson the Department of Justice seems to have forgotten.

But it turns out there is another federal agency that can help make the political process fairer – by making it more transparent. That agency is the SEC – the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Supreme Court’s dreadful Citizens United decision opened the floodgates for unlimited secret campaign contributions by corporations. The SEC can’t limit the contributions – but it can strip away the secrecy. The SEC’s mandate includes protecting investors from corporate abuse. This means the commission has the right to require all publicly traded corporations to disclose their campaign contributions.

But the SEC won’t act without public pressure. That’s why CREW is joining Public Citizen and others in urging the SEC to issue a rule requiring corporations to disclose their contributions.

Here’s how you can help:

• Send an e-mail to: rule-comments@sec.gov 
• Make sure the the subject line is: Comment on File Number 4-637.
• Then tell the SEC you want the agency to issue a rule requiring publicly traded corporations to publicly disclose all their political spending.

It’s often said that sunlight is the best disinfectant. Now you can help us "disinfect" Citizens United.

That is why CREW and other transparency advocates are calling on Congress to improve and modernize public access to the THOMAS database in the form of a bulk access THOMAS.

Members of Congress and their staff already have access to a more sophisticated system that allows users to download large amounts of information at once, including real-time access to amendments as they change, similar legislation introduced over multiple congressional sessions, and bill status and summary information in a fashion known as bulk access.  This kind of bulk access essentially makes the entire legislative database available for download, instead of requiring users to perform the arduous task of having to comb through hundreds if not thousands of web pages to access the information. 

Providing bulk access to THOMAS data in the same manner would not only make research for the general public far more user-friendly and efficient, but would provide technology innovators more means to creatively use the data they are mining.

Congress already expressed support for a bulk access THOMAS in 2009, but the Library of Congress, which oversees THOMAS, has not acted.  We are therefore asking Congress to direct the Library of Congress to implement bulk access for THOMAS in this year’s legislative branch appropriations bill.  Once signed into law, the system should be up and running in 120 days.

The time has come for Congress to ensure the general public has the same kind of access to a modern THOMAS in the same manner members of Congress and staff have with their legislative information system.

Mr. Romney’s 2010 tax return, which he released reluctantly, after months of political pressure, included all sorts of assets that the candidate didn’t bother to disclose on the PFD.

Now it looks like Mr. Romney is exploiting a loophole in federal ethics laws to hide even more.

As The Washington Post reports today:

By offering a limited description of his assets, Romney has made it difficult to know precisely where his money is invested, whether it is offshore or in controversial companies, or whether those holdings could affect his policies or present any conflicts of interest. …

Several outside experts across the political spectrum … say Romney’s disclosure is the most opaque they have encountered, with some suggesting the filing effectively defeats the spirit of disclosure requirements.

How is Mr. Romney getting away with it?  The Post reports that the OGE has permitted presidential candidates and nominees for federal office to postpone this kind of disclosure until after they are in office, if the candidate has a legally-binding confidentiality agreement.  Mr. Romney has such an agreement with Bain Capital, the private equity firm he founded.

But even Republican attorney Cleta Mitchell, whose clients include Romney rival Rick Santorum, and who is no friend of CREW, draws the line at Mr. Romney’s behavior.  She says she sees no legal authority for the OGE to make such an exception.  She says it sets up a double standard because the very rich are more likely to have their assets in accounts covered by confidentiality agreements.  To paraphrase F. Scott Fitzgerald, the OGE seems to think the super-rich are way different from you and me.

William Canfield III, former Republican counsel to the Senate Ethics Committee, understood the problem perfectly – when super rich Democrat Jon Corzine was running for the Senate in 2000: “Mr. Corzine has to understand, while he retains some privacy rights, he has given up a substantial number of them in holding himself out for public office,” Mr. Canfield said at the time.

As for that pesky confidentiality agreement, the Post reports that Mr. Romney’s lawyers have asked Bain Capital to release information about the funds in which Mr. Romney is invested, but they said no.

In other words, the man who wants to be leader of the free world can’t persuade his own former company to let him tell us where he’s invested his money.

Perhaps if he said “pretty please?”

Did your Rep make the list? Check our map to find out.

The responses from members of Congress asked to address their behavior started to sound alike after a while. “Her duties have been in total compliance with the rules of both the House Ethics Committee and the Federal Election Commission," claimed a statement by Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA) of his wife’s work as his campaign treasurer, for which she made $238,438 over the 2008 and 2010 campaign cycles. A spokesman for Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), who employed more relatives than any other member, said “everything that Dr. Paul has done in Politics is 100 percent above board and any insinuation otherwise is completely off base." (For the record, the spokesman – Rep. Paul’s grandson-in-law Jesse Benton – is in the report.)

These members of Congress want the public to know employing their families and steering campaign money their way is perfectly legal. For once, we agree. In our opinion, that’s the scandal. Members of Congress have devised a number of creative ways to benefit themselves and their families, and the law doesn’t require them to reveal they’re doing it. They can loan their campaigns money at high rates of interest and keep collecting for years. They don’t have to disclose their relationships with lobbyists. And even when they do violate the law, as in the case of Rep. Aaron Schock, they rarely get caught. The toothless Federal Election Commission certainly isn’t doing much about it.

Are you more ethical than Congress? Take our quiz and find out.

It's time for that to change. Family Affair includes a series of common-sense recommendations to curb members’ ability to steer money to themselves and their relatives. Paying campaign funds to family members should be limited or prohibited or, at the very least, transparent. Loans should carry unique identification numbers so payments can be easily tracked. Campaign reimbursements and credit card payments should always be itemized. Members’ relationships with lobbyists should be disclosed.

CREW researchers spent more than nine months combing through thousands of documents to put together Family Affair, and we need your help to bring about real change. Support CREW’s work, and add your voice to our calls for reform. In addition, we need your eyes and ears. If you know your representative is using campaign funds or official resources to benefit a family member, send a tip and tell us about it.

Who else but Richard Berman would argue we need to better protect drunk drivers? Sarah Longwell, the “managing director” of the American Beverage Institute (ABI) is credited with Today's MADD drives dangerous new policies, but Longwell’s real job is vice president at Berman’s public relations firm, Berman & Company, and ABI is just one of Berman’s many industry front groups.

With a title like managing director of the American Beverage Institute, you might think Longwell is an expert on sometimes conflicting goals of the hospitality industry, which both wants to ring up sales and, at the same time, ensure patrons drink responsibly. She’s not. Rather, she’s a paid flack trying to undermine the influence of Mothers Against Drunk Driving – a nonprofit that enjoys high public confidence – at the behest of corporate interests that don’t want their own fingerprints on such a dirty game.

According to ABI’s website, the group is “a restaurant trade association dedicated to protecting the on-premise dining experience – which often includes the responsible consumption of adult beverages.” As a representative for ABI, Longwell decries the inhumanity that, one day, alcohol detection technology may be installed in all vehicles. Sure, this technology would crack down on drunk drivers, but Longwell claims this also would inhibit the personal freedom of anyone who opts to get behind the wheel of a car after drinking responsibly. Never mind that even the facts she cites in her post do not support her claims. But the truth doesn’t interest Longwell.

According to research Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has conducted, Berman & Company uses corporate money to set up phony nonprofits to disseminate misinformation. In addition to ABI, by our count he’s behind at least 22 other groups – often as the executive director – and he passes himself and his staff off as experts on a number of hot-button issues. Berman’s nonprofits are astroturfing for big moneyed special interests. Longwell plays many different roles in Berman’s nonprofit empire. In addition to her position at ABI, she is the communications director for both the Center for Consumer Freedom and the Center for Union Facts, to name just two. She has served as an “expert” on a number of different topics, ranging from organized labor to health care reform, sweeteners to alcohol detection devices. Her real expertise is in hiding her real agenda from the media.

Longwell suggests the potential inconvenience and infringement on personal freedom of a few sober drivers far outweighs the danger of one drunk driver on the road. According to recent data released by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, over 10,000 crash deaths were the result of drivers impaired by alcohol in 2009. One of those was 11-year-old Leandra Rosado, who was killed and another six children were injured when Carmen Huertas got behind the wheel with a blood alcohol level of .132.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, an average drunk driver has driven drunk at least 80 times before her first arrest. Another study indicates that over 50% of drunk drivers continue to drive after their licenses have been suspended.

Rather than catching a drunk driver once she’s killed someone, doesn’t it make more sense to stop her before she gets behind the wheel? Longwell would rather we focus on the potential inconvenience and infringement on personal freedoms she claims a few sober drivers might suffer than the proven danger of drunk drivers on the road.

It seems there is nothing Berman and Longwell won’t say for a big enough paycheck.

That is a question better asked of the Department of Justice’s Office of Information Policy (OIP), which has directed considerable energy toward duplicating, but in name only, some of the EPA portal’s features, and explaining why its FOIA.gov website is the better choice. Things reached a climax of sorts last week, when OIP Director Melanie Pustay testified before the technology subcommittee of the House Government and Oversight Committee. In testimony described as “combative,” Ms. Pustay clung to the notion FOIA.gov, which provides hyperlinks to federal agencies’ web pages, is the equivalent of a FOIA portal. She then declared success on this front, made clear DOJ’s work was done, and refused to answer a question about why DOJ was not, instead, working with EPA to develop a true, government-wide FOIA portal.

As a number of us in the access community have been trying to explain to DOJ and other government officials for some time, FOIA.gov and the EPA FOIA Portal are two very different things. While each provides a valuable service, they decidedly are not interchangeable. Using FOIA.gov still will require a requester to submit FOIA requests individually to each recipient agency, following the individual formats each agency requires. And FOIA.gov will not house all of the documents agencies already have released under the FOIA. By contrast, EPA’s FOIA portal will provide a uniform way to submit a request of uniform format following one procedure to one central place, where it will be distributed to the appropriate agencies and agency components. Moreover, the FOIA Portal will house all documents released under the FOIA, reducing the number of unnecessary, duplicate requests.

Read: CREW and Other Groups Reaffirm Committment to FOIA Portal

Given the obvious benefits of EPA’s FOIA portal, one has to ask why DOJ is attempting to compete in the same space. Something else DOJ did last week may reveal the answer to this question. On March 19, 2012, DOJ published a Privacy Act System of Records notice covering, among other things, “records related to requests for OIP to serve as Ombudsman in disputes between federal agencies and individuals who submit FOIA requests . . .” OIP as FOIA ombudsman – isn’t that the role Congress legislated for NARA’s Office of Government Information Services (OGIS)? Sure is, and Congress made clear that was a role OGIS enjoyed to the exclusion of DOJ to ensure the ombudsman was “free from the influence of the Federal agency that litigates FOIA disputes – the Department of Justice.” [Congressional Record: February 14, 2008 (Senate), pg. S1050-S1051]. Which leads to the question when is a FOIA ombudsman not a FOIA ombudsman?

Could all this simply be a naked power grab by an agency attempting to protect its turf? There may be a far more innocent explanation, but I haven’t seen it yet.

This post was updated 3.29.12

• Read more about our efforts to open the government.
• Read our letter reaffirming commitment to EPA's FOIA portal

CREW strongly supports the Senate version, which among other things contained bipartisan Leahy-Cornyn amendment that gives law enforcement officials important tools to detect and prosecute public corruption.  This provision, in part, responds to the Supreme Court’s decision in Skilling v. United States, which eviscerated the Honest Services Fraud statute, frequently used by prosecutors to target self-dealing.  It also amends the illegal gratuities statute to prevent public officials from accepting gifts given because of their governmental position, and makes clear public officials who accept private compensation may be subject to prosecution.

Further, the House Judiciary Committee – the most contentious committee in Congress – had unanimously passed nearly identical legislation late last year. With Congress’ approval ratings at an all-time low, passing the STOCK Act with these provisions should be a no-brainer.  So why was House Majority Leader Eric Cantor so intent on preventing these changes to the law?  And why is Sen. Reid playing into his hands?  Sen. Reid could just as easily file cloture to force a conference committee with the House, or allow amendments to be re-incorporated in the House bill and kick it back to the House for consideration.  

The House Republican leadership should be forced to explain why it refuses to hold self-enriching corrupt public officials accountable.  Passing the House-version of the STOCK Act will only confirm what most Americans believe: members of Congress are more interested in serving their own interests than the public interest.

For example, during his tenure as a state representative, Rep. Rivera repeatedly claimed his main source of income outside of his work for the legislature came from consulting for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Yet somehow, neither USAID nor the State Department had any record of Rep. Rivera working for them. Rep. Rivera later amended all his reports to remove any references to income other than his state legislative salary.

Remarkably, during the interview, Rep. Rivera also denied his mother, Daisy Magarino, was involved with Millennium Marketing, Inc., the company at the center of the investigations. Maybe he forgot corporation records are also public and his mother is listed as the company's vice president.

Rep. Rivera was featured in CREW’s Most Corrupt report, and details about the multiple investigations into Rep. Rivera have been extensively reported by The Miami Herald.

Watch the video:

Curious about this announcement, I checked the Western District of Washington’s docket sheet for the case, 3:11-cv-05792-MRH, found here. In fact, since the lawsuit was filed last September it does not appear that so much as a single document has been handed over to the plaintiffs, one of whom, Doug Cloud is counsel on the case and is now running to replace Rep. Dicks. Rather than releasing records, the Department of Justice filed an answer to the complaint, claiming the court had no jurisdiction, that the plaintiffs had failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted and that plaintiffs sought to impose an obligation on the FBI not imposed by the FOIA. Notably, Cloud fails to link to or cite a single document in the release.

Further, Cloud demonstrates his unfamiliarity with the FOIA. The lawyer-cum-candidate claims he “knew that the Department of Justice position, that the files were not a matter of overriding public interest, was indefensible. The only possible way Dicks could keep the files sealed was to return to private life.” In fact, if a court found the public interest in the documents overrode Rep. Dicks’ privacy interests, whether or not the lawmaker remained in Congress or retired would be utterly irrelevant.

We know whereof we speak. CREW has sued DOJ for refusing to respond to our FOIA requests for documents concerning criminal investigations of Reps. Don Young (R-AK) and Jerry Lewis (R-CA). In both cases, federal judges have held the public interest in this information may override the congressmen’s privacy interests and have ordered DOJ to provide the documents or explain why any particular document is withheld. Although Rep. Lewis has announced his retirement, it wasn’t even mentioned by the court considering the case.

CREW is concerned about the PMA Group’s influence with members of Congress and has sued DOJ for records concerning the investigation and prosecution of Paul Magliocchetti. We’ve also posted documents related to the late Rep. John Murtha’s ties to the lobbying group. As sympathetic as we are to efforts to uncover information about potential congressional corruption, no such evidence is revealed here. The press release is ridiculous and other sites should have exercised a little due diligence before parroting its inane claims.