|
CREW Releases Report Detailing Senators' Use of Positions to Benefit Family Members
On February 24th, CREW released its first-ever analysis of the misuse of power by members of the Senate to financially benefit their family members. The new report, Family Affair - Senate, names 87 senators from all 50 states: 42 Democrats, 43 Republicans and 2 Independents.
In light of several well publicized cases of members of Congress using their positions to enrich their family members, in June, 2007 CREW released Family Affair - House, which examined the 337 members of the House of Representatives in top leadership positions and the chairs and ranking members of House committees and subcommittees. CREW has now applied the same analysis to the Senate.
Highlights of CREW's Family Affair - Senate report include:
- 31 senators have one or more family members registered to lobby or employed in government affairs.
- In total, senators paid $928,399.49 in fees or contributions to family businesses or employers.
- Combined, senators paid $528,797.42 in salaries or fees directly to family members.
Read the full report
Read The Washington Post story Read The New York Times editorial
CREW Demands Investigation Into $74 Million Contract to Company Producing Substandard Military Helmets
 On February 6th, in light of evidence that a company has been outfitting our nation's troops with substandard Kevlar helmets, CREW sent a letter to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees requesting an investigation into a $74 million Department of Defense contract awarded to Sioux Manufacturing.
The New York Times reported that Sioux Manufacturing, which makes Kevlar helmets, has agreed to pay $2 million to settle a lawsuit alleging that the company had shortchanged the armor in up to 2.2 million helmets for the military, including helmets used by American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Department of Defense, aware of both the problem with Sioux's helmets and the company's efforts to cover it up, awarded another contract to Sioux a mere 12 days before the lawsuit was settled.
On February 28th, CREW, joined by VoteVets.org, hosted a tele-press conference that included two whistleblowers from Sioux Manufacturing asking for congressional investigations into the contract. The next day, members of the North Dakota congressional delegation called on the Pentagon to commence an investigation.
Read more Read the Associated Press story
|
One of CREW's Most Corrupt - Rep. Rick Renzi - Indicted
On February 22nd, Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ) was indicted on 35 federal charges. CREW has included Rep. Renzi in Beyond DeLay: The Most Corrupt Members of Congress report for the past three years. His most recent profile can be read here: http://www.beyonddelay.org/node/94.
On February 28th, the House Ethics Committee announced that it would conduct an investigation into Rep. Renzi. The House has a longstanding policy of deferring an ethics investigation while a criminal prosecution is pending. The trick would be for the Ethics Committee to spearhead an investigation of a member alleged to have engaged in misconduct before the Justice Department gets involved. Rep. Renzi undoubtedly will have retired - perhaps to a federal penitentiary - before the Ethics Committee ever takes any action against him. The current stalemate on ethics reform simply highlights that despite all the rhetoric, members still are not serious about taking on their unethical colleagues.
Read more
Read the Associated Press story
Court Orders Discovery in CREW Lawsuit Against the White House Office of Administration
On February 11th, U.S. District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly issued an order allowing CREW to conduct limited discovery in the case of CREW v. Office of Administration (OA).
CREW is seeking documents that the OA prepared assessing the scope of the missing White House email problem and its proposed recovery plan. The administration has taken the position that the OA is not an agency subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), despite responding to FOIA requests in the past.
CREW argued that discovery was necessary to determine whether the OA is indeed an agency as defined by federal law, and the court agreed.
Read more
Read the Associated Press story
|
