The House version of the bill drops a Senate amendment requiring political intelligence consultants to register and disclose their activities.  Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) inserted the amendment after a Wall Street Journal story described how the $100-million-a-year political intelligence industry gathers political information, then sells it to hedge funds and other investors for use in investment decisions. 

CREW has pointed out Rep. Cantor’s strong ties to Wall Street investors before.  In addition, it turns out the chairman of one of the leading political intelligence firms has donated thousands to Rep. Cantor.  Mark Gerson, chairman of Gerson Lehrman Group Inc., donated $23,500 to Rep. Cantor’s joint fundraising committee during the 2010 election cycle alone, according to campaign contribution data tracked by CQ Moneyline.  So far during the 2011 cycle, Mr. Gerson has contributed $15,000 to the Cantor Victory Fund.   Mr. Gerson’s donations made Rep. Cantor, by far, the biggest recipient of donations from employees of Gerson Lehrman.

Given the secrecy in which the political intelligence firms are cloaked, Rep. Cantor may well have received significant contributions from others in the industry.  We just don’t know.  And that’s the point.

The right wing’s favorite hatchet-man isn’t a big fan of unions, so he pumped a lot of money into a deceptive ad from his fake non-profit organization, the Center for Union Facts (CUF).

If you didn’t know any better, you could be forgiven for thinking that CUF has some actual experts to back up its “facts.”  In reality, the whole charade is nothing more than another creation of Mr. Berman’s  PR firm, Berman and Company. 

Over the years, Mr. Berman has taken millions in corporate cash and used it to set up front groups –  like CUF – that help corporations hide the truth from the public.   Mr. Berman has fashioned himself an expert on everything from smoking to food safety, and from children’s health to tanning beds.

Super Bowl ads aren’t cheap, so it begs the question: which big pocketed corporations is Richard Berman shilling for this time?

As an added bonus, the STOCK Act – passed on a nearly unanimous vote last night - goes well beyond congressional insider trading to embrace two key anti-corruption provisions CREW has been pushing for the past two years.  

First, the STOCK Act incorporates the “Public Corruption Prosecution Improvements Act,” bipartisan legislation sponsored by Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and John Cornyn (R-TX), which will give law enforcement officials the tools they need to detect and prosecute public corruption.  This amendment responds in part to last year’s Supreme Court decision in Skilling v. United States, which cut back the scope of 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 positions and makes clear public officials who accept private compensation may be subject to prosecution. 

In addition, the Senate-passed STOCK Act incorporates the “Congressional Integrity and Pension Forfeiture” amendment.  This critical amendment, sponsored by Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), would ensure that, going forward, no present or former Member of Congress convicted of a public corruption felony while serving in elected office – regardless of when it was committed – will receive federal pension benefits.  It adds 22 new public corruption offenses to a law that revokes congressional pensions for convicted lawmakers.  Importantly, it also ensures that former Members of Congress will forfeit their pensions if convicted of committing public corruption crimes while serving in any other elected office.

It has been a long time since we have seen the Senate act in such a democratic and bipartisan manner.  Last night was proof, even if it is an election year, this body can act in a collegial manner worthy of the institution the founding fathers envisioned.

Now… onto the House of Representatives.  House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) said the House would review the Senate bill, adding he intended to bring it to the floor next week.  This is surprisingly good news given Cantor’s reported refusal to allow the bill to see committee markup last December.  We are not out of the woods yet, however.  Will the Majority Leader take the Senate version of the STOCK Act up as-is or will he allow amendments in some way?  If there are amendments, what do they look like and what happens to the bill if it goes to conference committee? 

Regardless, the U.S. Senate took a good first step in demonstrating that they hear our concerns and are here to serve the public interest, not their own personal financial interests.  Make your voice heard.

The National Prayer Breakfast is a meeting and recruiting event for the shadowy group known as the Fellowship Foundation, or colloquially as “The Family.”  The group’s leader, Doug Coe, offers his services as a spiritual advisor to some leading government officials, all the while using that access to push his brand of Christianity on the American people by influencing the lawmakers he advises. 

Mr. Coe’s group also owns and operates the infamous C Street House on Capitol Hill, which over the years has been home to some rather ethically challenged (and morally self-righteous) politicians, among them former Senators Rick Santorum (R-PA) and John Ensign (R-NV).

Outside of Washington, “The Family” has used its government clout to facilitate backdoor meetings between U.S. and foreign officials, and has persuaded members of Congress, including Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), to engage in Fellowship-sanctioned evangelizing while traveling at taxpayer expense.  Salon.com uncovered, revolting detail, the lengths to which members of “The Family” went to help Laurent Gbagbo, the now former president and dictator of the Ivory Coast, hold on to power.  Mr. Gbagbo is now in The Hague awaiting trial by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity.  “The Family” has also supported abhorrent anit-gay legislation in Uganda. 

You can tell a lot about people by the company they choose to keep; why would any lawmaker want to be associated with a group like the Fellowship Foundation?    

There are plenty of great places to have breakfast in Washington, D.C., and we suggest lawmakers and leaders avoid the prayer breakfast and eat elsewhere instead of heading to the Washington Hilton.  Our elected leaders’ attendance confers Mr. Coe and his followers the legitimacy they don’t deserve.  

This also leads me to wonder whether there also might be discrepancies between Mr. Romney’s 2006 return and the PFD he filed in 2007 – when he last ran for president. Mr. Romney never released his 2006 return so no one ever had a chance to compare the two before.

Mr. Romney has embraced the notion of transparency for Mr. Gingrich, calling on the former speaker to push for release of the file from the ethics inquiry that resulted in a $300,000 fine as well as his consulting agreement with Freddie Mac.

We agree with Mr. Romney; the public should have the chance to review those materials. In fact, earlier this week, we sent Freedom of Information Act requests to DOJ and the IRS asking for the ethics file. But what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Now it is Mr. Romney’s turn to reveal his tax returns and let the American people judge whether he has behaved honestly and ethically.

Rep. Delahunt’s case may be more direct than most, but he isn’t alone.  CREW’s research found five other former lawmakers, all of whom left office within the past five years, collecting lobbying fees for institutions they earmarked to while in office (two others are registered to lobby for institutions they have earmarked to, but reported earning only nominal fees).  The members collectively earmarked more than $70 million to the organizations they went on to represent, and have pulled in a total of nearly $1.9 million from the work.   Former Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS), for example, earmarked $1.6 million for defense contractor Northrop Grumman in the 2008 budget.  Then he left office – but apparently kept up the relationship.  The company was one of his early lobbying clients, and lobbying disclosure records show the contract brought in nearly $1.3 million in fees between 2008 and 2010.

The practice is, at best, unseemly – and, given that the lobbying ban for former members who left office last year just expired, likely to become even more widespread.

(click chart to enlarge)

This past weekend marked the two-year anniversary of one of the most disastrous Supreme Court decisions on record.  So it was a pity the president didn’t seize the moment to reflect on the broken campaign finance system left in the wake of Citizens United and the utterly dysfunctional non-enforcement agency we have in the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

Like many of you, we here at CREW are keeping a close eye on the 2012 election cycle.  We are already seeing unprecedented amounts of special interest and secret money used to create the ads that flood our airwaves.  We’re also learning exactly how powerful super PACs can be: without $10 million in contributions to his super PAC by just one family, Newt Gingrich would have been forced out of the race.  Meanwhile, the FEC remains derelict. 

CREW and a broad coalition of campaign finance and election reform groups have long been calling on President Obama to step up to the plate and fulfill his obligation to nominate new commissioners to the FEC. Ever since the failed nomination of his first nominee John Sullivan three years, however, he has remained silent.  Meanwhile, five of the six commissioners serve despite expired terms, and two of them resolutely refuse to enforce our campaign finance laws.  This is unacceptable.

Consequently, using a vehicle set up by the White House CREW and others have launched a petition asking President Obama to nominate new commissioners to the FEC.  If we reach 25,000 signatures by February 10^th, the president will respond to our request.  President Obama can’t force Congress to pass campaign finance reform measures such as enhanced disclosures, but he certainly can and should begin the process of reforming the FEC by nominating five new commissioners.  Senate Republicans, led by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) are adamantly opposed to enforcement of campaign finance laws and will undoubtedly block any nominees, but most Americans are repulsed by all the money flowing into our electoral system and want to see our political leaders take action.  This is a fight worth having.  

If you haven’t done so already, please take five minutes to sign the petition. 

Rep. Buchanan claims the documents show the FEC cleared him of wrongdoing, and show the allegations that he improperly reimbursed employees for campaign contributions are false.  Perhaps he hasn’t read them.  The FEC seems to have found a whole lot of evidence. 

For example, Salvatore Rosa, the financial controller of Rep. Buchanan's companies, testified that Rep. Buchanan asked him to help ensure an employee received a reimbursement for a political contribution as far back as the early 2000s.  Mr. Rosa testified that he told Rep. Buchanan that such reimbursements were illegal.  Rep. Buchanan replied, “Finesse it,” according to Mr. Rosa.  Rep. Buchanan apparently denied having the conversation at all, according to the FEC general counsel’s report.  Later, Rep. Buchanan’s lawyer told the FEC “that the phrase ‘finesse it’ could be interpreted in different ways and that Buchanan might interpret such a statement differently than Rosa did.”  In a sentence that speaks volumes, the FEC general counsel dryly noted “Respondents did not offer any examples of alternative interpretations.”  Here’s hoping one of the other entities investigating Rep. Buchanan – the House Ethics Committee or the Department of Justice – follows up and asks for some of those alternative interpretations.  We can’t think of any. 

The Buchanan case again raises what has become a recurring question for the FEC: What exactly does a politician have to do to get punished around here?  The answer isn’t clear.  Meanwhile, offenders can continue to violate campaign finance law without consequence. 

Cases like Rep. Buchanan’s are why CREW and a coalition of other groups have started a petition asking President Obama to fix the FEC by nominating new commissioners who will uphold campaign finance laws.  Five of the six commissioners are serving despite expired terms – a situation the president can do something about.  Click here to sign our petition, or go to our website to learn more about the campaign. 

While Mr. Colbert plays for laughs, the joke is on the voters who are subjected to similarly misleading (although admittedly less over the top) ads from other super PACs as a result of the disastrous Citizens United decision.   This coming Saturday marks the two-year anniversary of the misguided Supreme Court ruling that opened the floodgates, allowing unlimited corporate money to pour into our elections.   

Today, the Washington Post highlighted the incredible donations flowing to super PACs in the Palmetto State, including what may be a record-breaking five million dollar donation to a super PAC supporting Newt Gingrich made by Sheldon Adelson, a Las Vegas casino mogul. 

While Mr. Adelson is an extreme example, he is certainly not alone.   As the Post notes:

In total, these new and unrestrained political action committees spent more than $15 million supporting GOP candidates in Iowa and New Hampshire and are now outspending the official campaigns in South Carolina by 2 to 1, according to advertising and expenditure data.

Many of the wealthy donors to the super PACs will remain anonymous until January 31st, when reports must be filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC).   The date conveniently falls after the Florida primary, by which point the Republican nomination likely will be all but locked up.  At that point,   knowing who paid for misleading ads in early primary states and why they did probably won’t have much impact.

Super PACs, including those supporting candidates in the upcoming primaries, often have innocuous names such as Restore Our Future, a pro-Romney super PAC that has spent over $7 million so far this primary season.   At least super PACs eventually have to tell you who donated and how much they gave – unless of course they pass the donations through a nonprofit organized under section 501(c)4 of the tax code, which allows donors to remain anonymous.  The 501(c)(4) groups won’t just pass on donations, they likely will run ads themselves.  In the 2010 cycle, the American Action Network spent $18 million on ads supporting Republican congressional candidates.   When CREW scrutinized AAN’s tax filings, we found the so-called “network” got most of its money from only three donors. 

In the midst of all this chaos, the agency tasked with enforcing campaign finance law, the FEC, appears to be sitting the election out.  That’s why CREW has called on President Obama to take action while there is still time.   We’ve asked the president to appoint new commissioners to the FEC who will vigorously enforce our election laws.  We’ve created a White House petition, and if we gather 25,000 signatures, the administration must respond. 

Add your voice to the growing chorus of Americans who believe our elections should be about the candidates with the best ideas – not the most money.  Sign our petition here. 

Candidates for federal office must be held accountable when they violate campaign finance laws.

If you agree, like we do, President Obama needs to hear from you today. Please take 5 minutes to sign our petition, forcing the president to take a stand for fair elections.

Primary season is in full swing, only this time with mountains of corporate money bursting through every crack in the system, thanks to the disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision. Amidst this chaos, the agency charged with holding back the deluge – the Federal Election Commission (FEC) – is a dysfunctional mess. Three of the six commissioners staunchly refuse to enforce the law, and five of the six are serving despite expired terms. Notwithstanding this dismal state of affairs, President Obama has sat on the sidelines, refusing to nominate new commissioners.

Click here to sign a White House petition demanding that President Obama nominate five new commissioners willing to uphold campaign finance laws.

We need real campaign finance reform, and getting President Obama to nominate new commissioners to replace the ineffective squatters is a good place to start.

Under a process the White House set up, if 25,000 people sign our petition within the next 30 days, President Obama will respond to our demand. The bar is high, but with your help we can do it. Tell your family, forward this to your friends, post it on Facebook, tweet about it, and together we can work towards restoring faith in our democratic process.

Visit our website to learn more about the campaign.

Take action. Tell President Obama it’s time to stop sitting on the sidelines, stand up for democracy, and nominate new FEC commissioners today.

Instead of addressing the charges, Mr. Santorum responded with the tried and un-true GOP talking point that CREW only targets Republicans. Fortunately, many fact-checking reporters caught onto Mr. Santorum’s trick.

• The New York Times pointed out that our 2011 Most Corrupt list is bipartisan, with four liberal House Democrats on the list of 14 lawmakers. Three more Democrats merited dishonorable mentions.

• The Washington Post noted we’ve named plenty of Democrats as corrupt.

• ABC News explained that CREW “focuses its criticism on both parties.”

Mr. Santorum should take a lesson from CREW and just stick with the facts. To us it doesn’t matter if politicians are Republicans or Democrats, only that they’ve broken the rules.

Now that he’s back in the game, maybe Mr. Santorum finally will be forced to explain his unethical conduct.

On January 3, Mr. Gingrich decried super PAC Restore Our Future and its ties to fellow Republican candidate Mitt Romney, telling CBS, “This is a man whose staff created the PAC, his millionaire friends fund the PAC, he pretends he has nothing to do with the PAC - it’s baloney.”  In other words, it’s not fair.  Mr. Gingrich says he still supports the Citizens United decision, but he has the air of a man thinking twice about the lack of disclosure coming with it. 

Mr. Gingrich may yet benefit from super PAC spending, though he’s promised to “publicly disown” any super PAC going negative to help him.  We’ll see.   Other candidates with super PACs already working for them are thinking twice about the lack of disclosure- former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, for instance.  Former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge, a Huntsman supporter, recently said Mr. Huntsman believes the names of the donors funding those groups should be subject to near instantaneous disclosure.

With super PACs poised to play an ever bigger role in the general election, the unlimited money fueling negative attacks ads will only grow.  Meanwhile, the ineffectiveness of the current minimal disclosure requirements becomes clearer every day.   More and more, even those who originally supported the Citizens United decision will start to realize this is an arms race no one can win.

*This post was edited on 2/6/12

From yesterday’s Washington Post:

An organization that is spending millions of dollars to back Romney has changed the schedule it will follow to report donations to the federal government, a step that means it can postpone disclosing the names of its financial backers until after the Florida primary on the last day of January.

This means it’s entirely possible (although not likely given the recent polls) that Mr. Romney could have the Republican nomination completely sewn up without his Super PAC ever telling voters who’s paid the millions of dollars for ads aimed at convincing voters the former Massachusetts governor is a good guy.

What if ROF is funded by money from the Koch Brothers? Or Donald Trump? Would caucus goers in Iowa, or the independents who vote in New Hampshire’s open primary view the SuperPAC’s ads in a different light if that information was made public?  We’ll never know. 

Welcome to the Wild Wild West of presidential primaries created by the disastrous Citizens United decision.  The useless Federal Election Commission has had more than a year to put guidelines in place to better regulate Super PACs like Restore our Future, but instead sat on its hands and did absolutely nothing.

“Cantor delivered the cease-and-desist order on behalf of GOP leaders … who were concerned that Bachus could help give the bill life by having the committee approve it … it put[s] members of the committee in a tough spot: Even if they think the bill’s a bad idea, it’s hard to go home and explain why they voted against,” reports Politico.

Oh the humanity.  As many of you may know, the STOCK Act is gaining a great deal of momentum following a “60 Minutes” program on the issue and a release of a new book by Peter Schweizer that documents congressional insider trading in detail.  Hearings have been held in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and members are flooding the bills with bipartisan support. 

This should be a no-brainer for Congress.  At a time of record low approval ratings, Congress must pass legislation that provides some kind of accountability to the American people should future malfeasance occur.  While there is a real academic debate as to whether Members of Congress could be held liable for insider trading as the law stands today, it misses the point.  To date there has been zero enforcement action by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as to congressional insider trading and there is little reason to believe the SEC would act without congressional direction.  And while we may discover on down the line that congressional insider trading isn’t a rampant problem, in the meantime Congress should put to rest any doubts.

Senators Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) and Susan Collins (R-ME) have pledged to markup the STOCK Act in the Senate next week and the House should follow suit.  Otherwise, what else can we muse but that Rep. Cantor and the GOP leadership must have something to hide?  

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) is strongly in favor of this legislation, which comes on the heels of our call for the Supreme Court to allow the live telecast of the unusual 5½ hours of oral arguments in the cases surrounding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  Allowing cameras in the courtroom for this and other cases argued before the Court would provide every American the opportunity to hear and assess the arguments in real time, and more importantly, provide an excellent educational opportunity to contribute to the public’s understanding of America’s judicial system. 

CREW again applauds Senators Grassley and Durbin for their leadership on this issue and looks forward to assisting in any way possible to see it through to final passage.  To learn more about this bill and the constitutional issues surrounding it, you can watch Tuesday’s Senate Judiciary hearing here.

So, when a politician goes out of his or her way to destroy records and hide things from the public, our antenna goes up. 

Take this eye opening story from The Washington Post this morning, which details the extraordinary (and expensive) measures Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney employed to keep the potentially messy details of his time as Massachusetts governor out of the public eye.

The high points from the Post:

• Mitt Romney spent nearly $100,000 in state funds to replace computers in his office at the end of his term as governor of Massachusetts in 2007 as part of an unprecedented effort to keep his records secret.
• When Romney left the governorship of Massachusetts, 11 of his aides bought the hard drives of their state-issued computers for themselves. Also before he left office, the governor’s staff had e-mails and other electronic communications wiped from state servers, state officials say.
• Theresa Dolan, former director of administration for the governor’s office, told Reuters that Romney’s efforts to control or wipe out the records were unprecedented.  Dolan said that in her 23 years as an aide to successive governors “no one had ever inquired about, or expressed the desire” to purchase their computer hard drives before Romney’s tenure.
• The cleanup of records by Romney’s staff included spending $205,000 for a three-year lease on new computers for the governor’s office, according to official documents and state officials.  In signing the lease, Romney aides broke an earlier three-year lease that provided the same number of computers for about half the cost — $108,000, according to documents.

All of these actions were taken just as Mr. Romney was preparing to ramp up his 2008 presidential campaign, so it’s pretty unlikely the timing was coincidental.   As the 2012 campaign season gets in full swing, the public will have plenty of questions for Mr. Romney.  For example, while he has made a point to attack President Obama on health care, it certainly would be interesting to know what he and his staff said about the issue during his time as governor. With Mr. Romney’s wholesale destruction of his records, however, we may never get the chance.

This seems to be just another attempt by Mr. Romney to avoid questions about his past.  Lately, he’s been doing everything possible to avoid reporters and complained that even Fox News is too tough an interview for him.  It all begs the question: what’s Mitt Romney trying to hide?

We’ve spliced together key highlights of the hearing for your viewing pleasure. 

As readers may already know, this crucial legislation contains much-needed reforms to provide the Department of Justice with the tools necessary to prosecute public corruption.  CREW continues to be a leading voice in Washington calling on Congress to pass this legislation in response to a series of court decisions that have eviscerated some our nation’s most important prosecutorial tools in fighting corruption.  At a time of acrimonious partisanship, we vigorously congratulate Rep. Sensenbrenner and Rep. Quigley for their fierce determination to see this bill through after a rocky initial hearing.  

Nearly identical legislation (S.401) sponsored by Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and John Cornyn (R-TX) has already passed out of committee in the Senate.   With a bit of luck, Congress may send one of the only truly bipartisan bills to the president’s desk by year’s end.  You can read more about the bill here.

As the letter states, the STOCK Act is gaining a great deal of momentum in just the last few days following a “60 Minutes” program on the issue and a release of a new book by Peter Schweizer that documents congressional insider trading in detail.  The number of co-sponsors on the House bill has increased more than five-fold just this week, and a hearing has already been scheduled on the bill before the House Financial Services Committee.  And for the first time, companion bills are being introduced in the Senate by Sens. Scott Brown (R-Mass.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and others.

The current state of affairs is unacceptable.  Members of Congress should not be above the law when it comes to insider trading and it is simply reprehensible that some are enriching themselves when they should be making policy decisions based on what’s best for the public, not their stock portfolio.

CREW applauds the new cosponsors and strongly encourages all members of Congress to sign-on to help achieve its passage.  To read more about the STOCK Act, see here and here. 

It has long been known members of Congress considerably outperform the general public in receiving abnormally high returns from their stocks.  As public officials are often privy to advance knowledge based on proposed legislation or regulatory acts, these high returns suggest – and the evidence bears out – members are cashing in on inside information.  To date such actions are legal, as Congress has failed to act on legislation that would bar members from trading on this sort of inside information.  Under current law, “insider trading” is defined as the buying or selling of securities or commodities based on non-public information in violation of confidentiality either to the issuing company or the source of information.  Congressional officials and employees, however, have no duty of confidentiality to these companies and thus are not liable for insider trading.  

The transaction in question for Pelosi dates back to her time as Speaker of the House in 2008.  In March of that year, her husband purchased 5,000 shares of Visa stock as part of an initial public offering.  This purchase, 60 Minutes contends, came “just as a troublesome piece of legislation that would have hurt credit card companies began making its way through the House …[t]he credit card legislation never made it to the floor of the House.”  The implication is clear:  Pelosi and her husband purchased the stock, and in order to profit financially from the purchase Speaker Pelosi killed legislation the credit card industry opposed.  If true, CREW would be the first to sound the alarm.  But the facts simply don’t add up.

The legislation at issue (pertaining to swipe fees) was reported out of the Judiciary Committee on October 3, 2008, the last day of the regular legislative session and on the same day the House was consumed with responding to the financial collapse and bailout.  Thereafter, the House had merely four days of lame duck session in November and December and there was no chance the president would sign the swipe fees legislation into law.  But it was under Speaker Pelosi that the House of Representatives passed not only the Credit Cardholders Bill Rights in 2008 (legislation fiercely opposed to by the credit card industry), but also the Dodd-Frank legislation in 2010, which incorporated a more robust version of the swipe fees legislation.  Anyone who watches Congress knows that just because a bill is reported out of committee doesn’t mean it is set for passage by the full chamber.  There are always political considerations involved, and in this case the swipe fees legislation zeroed in on by 60 Minutes was not slowed down by Rep. Pelosi, but rather the political realities of the day.  The fact is, Rep. Pelosi has been out front pushing to protect consumers from predatory fees and the idea she was protecting the credit card companies is preposterous.

Similarly, Rep. Boehner received no better treatment.  60 Minutes suggests Rep. Boehner’s opposition to the “public option” as part of the health care overhaul stemmed from health insurance stocks he purchased shortly before the public option was killed.  This is laughable on its face.  Not a single Republican supported the public option – nor did the majority of Blue Dog Democrats and the White House – and as Minority Leader in the House, Boehner had little power to “kill” it.  Boehner’s spokesman sums it up nicely: “The idea that the Republican Leader in the House opposed the ‘public option’ … for personal profit is, frankly, stupid.” 

60 Minutes did a disservice to Pelosi and Boehner, and undermined the case for the “Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act” (STOCK Act).  The program should have kept its focus on real examples of congressional insider trading such as Rep. Spencer Bachus, who was sitting in meetings with Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson during the early stirrings of the financial crisis and then making big bets the stock market would tank.  Similarly, Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) made several questionable trades in 2005 that have come under heavy scrutiny. 

If there is a silver lining to this episode of 60 Minutes, on Tuesday Senators Scott Brown (R-MA) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) introduced the STOCK Act in the Senate, perhaps in response to the program.  Companion legislation has long been dormant in the House, but since Sunday’s 60 Minutes the bill has gained nearly 20 new cosponsors.  

I also wanted to meet the man. CREW had been quick to recognize the problems with Abramoff’s conduct and his reach in Congress. We had a website, jackinthehouse.org, detailing the lobbyist’s connections to myriad members of Congress. We had pushed Congress to consider an ethics complaint against Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH), the only lawmaker eventually charged in the scandal, and we had been strongly critical of other members, including Reps. Tom DeLay (R-TX) and John Doolittle (R-CA) and Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT), all of whom are, thankfully, now out of Congress.

Tucker’s house is lovely and his charming wife and children were at the door greeting guests. I overheard one of their neighbors ask if others from area would be attending and Tucker responded that they would not; they were offended by the party and had discovered previous engagements. Many of those present worked for the Daily Caller and a few were there from the Weekly Standard. There were also reporters – from the New York Times, Washington Post and Talking Points Memo – who came to cover the event. Tucker explained he had not previously known Abramoff, but felt the town was awfully hypocritical in judging the disgraced lobbyist so harshly and he was, therefore, pleased to offer his assistance.

I introduced myself to Jack, wondering exactly how pleased he’d be to meet me, despite his recent 60 Minutes interview in which he renounced his former life and claimed the mantle of a reformer. Strangely enough, he was happy to make my acquaintance. He even told me he had considered reaching out to me during the height of the scandal to offer some helpful advice, but had decided against it on the advice of counsel. I asked him if he’d assist CREW now by offering insights into the way the lobbying world works and he promised to do so. He said despite the changes to ethics rules, little had changed since his heyday. One of the biggest problems is that so many people – both lawmakers and congressional staff – now view the Hill as just a way station on their way to a highly paid lobbying job, making them all the more eager to maintain strong relationships with those who lobby them.

We agreed that the efforts by both Congress and the White House to blame lobbyists for all the ills of the Capitol culture is misguided – after all lobbyists are not the final decision makers, they don’t have a vote. Nevertheless, official Washington rarely accepts responsibility for its own conduct – so much easier to blame everyone else.

Jack is busy with his book tour for the next several weeks, but promised to get back in touch after that to get down to the business of government reform. He signed a copy for me: “For Melanie – who would imagine that we’re now on the same side! Look forward to working together for the future. Warmest regards, Jack Abramoff.”

Jack’s claim to be a changed man certainly seemed sincere, but after all, he doesn’t have anywhere else to go. It’s not as if his old colleagues would welcome him back into the fold. It remains to be seen whether the zealotry of the newly converted lasts past the last television interview.

via UDaily

Nov. 3, 2011--Offering a history primer on scandal in American politics dating back to the 18th century, political watchdog Melanie Sloan told a large National Agenda audience Wednesday, Nov. 2, that she sees growing public dissatisfaction with a dysfunctional government that is both for sale to the highest bidder and unable to tackle problems of substance.

Sloan is the founder and executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and a nationally recognized expert on congressional ethics. Her talk, presented in Mitchell Hall on the University of Delaware campus in Newark, was titled "Scandalous Politicians."

"Americans are increasingly cynical about our government leaders," Sloan said, adding that "scandals have been a part of the political experience since the nation's founding."

Read more...

The Federal Election Commission is broken. The agency charged with implementing and enforcing federal campaign finance law often does neither.

But you are unlikely to hear much about this when the House Administration Committee holds a hearing Thursday on the agency’s performance. Only FEC commissioners are testifying — no public interest groups or academics invited.

The terms of five of the six FEC commissioners have expired — yet they continue to sit. Decisive action by President Barack Obama is needed to replace these panel members with new people who will approach their charge responsibly and fairly.

The Administration Committee Chairman Dan Lungren (R-Calif.), a leader in the opposition to transparency on money in politics, seems little interested in how the FEC gutted the nation’s disclosure laws and deadlocked on an unprecedented number of actions. Yet this has been preventing the agency from making decisions — or even enforcing election law.

A broad coalition, including Americans for Campaign Reform, Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Democracy 21, League of Women Voters, Public Campaign, Public Citizen and U.S. PIRG, has now appealed to congressional oversight committees, requesting that they “investigate and hold hearings on the systemic problems with the Federal Election Commission.” To no avail.

It is highly unlikely that this hearing will be any more fruitful in addressing why the FEC has become a national campaign finance scandal.

FEC decisions must be approved by at least a four-vote majority. Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), a long-time foe of campaign finance laws, realized that he can “appoint” commissioners who oppose the law. When the three Republican FEC commissioners deadlock the vote, no decision can be made. That is what is happening.

Examples of the FEC’s ineffectiveness are legion. The agency often dismisses complaints because of deadlocked votes or promulgates rules contrary to the law.

Deadlocked votes have reached an all-time high. Historically, fewer than 2 percent of all enforcement actions were stymied by deadlocks. Since the appointment of the current GOP commissioners, however, that percentage has jumped eightfold.

There has also been a startling increase in deadlocks on nearly all other agency decisions, often incapacitating the FEC from even offering advice to candidates.

Consider the recent enforcement actions, including one involving the November Fund, a 527 group organized by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that refused to register as a political committee, and another involving a Democratic congressional candidate who neglected to disclose 90 percent of his campaign’s donors. All the parties had consented to conciliation agreements or to pay civil penalties — only to have the Republican commissioners refuse those agreements.

The FEC also deadlocked on writing regulations to address the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in June. At the same meeting, the panel deadlocked on an advisory request by Facebook on whether its campaign advertising banners are exempt from disclaimer rules. The company was left to decide what to do on its own.

When the panel does reach an agreement, it is sometimes by accident — and with disastrous results, like the 2007 decision to gut the disclosure rules. While the law requires that any group making electioneering communications disclose its donors, the FEC proposed narrowing disclosure only to contributors who earmark money for campaign ads.

One Democrat who joined in the vote regretted soon after realizing that few donors earmark funds for specific ads. Too late; the damage was done.

Disclosure of donors funding electioneering communications has been steadily falling — from nearly 100 percent in the 2004 and 2006 elections, to 50 percent in 2008 elections, down to 32 percent in 2010. Outside groups are also exploiting the lack of effective disclosure rules for all other types of campaign ads. Even the new super PACs, which had previously fully disclosed their donors because they are registered committees, have now realized that they too can evade disclosure — by accepting secret donations from shell companies.

Comedy Central host Stephen Colbert mocked this loophole by setting up a shell company — on TV — to hide donations to his super PAC. “Clearly, these (c)(4)s have created an unprecedented, unaccountable, untraceable cash tsunami,” Colbert said, “that will infect every corner of the next election. And I feel like an idiot for not having one.”

But his efforts have not brought any changes. The three Republican commissioners steadfastly refused to revisit the disclosure rule when it was brought up again this year.

These commissioners are carrying out what could be described as “agency nullification,” failing to provide for any effective enforcement of the statutes within their purview.

But don’t expect to hear that at the House committee hearing on Thursday.

Craig Holman is the government affairs lobbyist at Public Citizen. Melanie Sloan is the executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

Originally posted 11/3/2011 on POLITICO

"I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in it's [sic] birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws our country."

- Thomas Jefferson, 1816

Roughly three years ago – amidst the financial catastrophe that cost taxpayers trillions of dollars to bailout, the growing foreclosure crisis and the continued hemorrhaging of jobs – a growing chorus of ordinary Americans began doing something they had never done before: speak up.  Although quickly exploited by special interests for political gain and dubbed the Tea Party, endemic to the movement were legitimate and palpable grievances against not only crony capitalism, but the bought and paid for politicians who let it all happen on their watch.

Today, a new movement is sweeping the country voicing similar frustrations.  Among other things, Occupy Wall Street (OWS) complains of the same audacious corporations and banks - still seemingly bottomless pits of greed - and their abettors in Congress, despite a nation reeling from the financial collapse.  Setting aside political ideology and partisan motives, there seems to be a lot on which both sides can agree.  Most significantly: the loudest voices in the room are not ordinary Americans, but big, rich corporate actors.

To wit:

Despite sitting on roughly $2 trillion dollars in corporate coffers, business lobbyists and the Chamber of Commerce (“Chamber”) are pushing hard to enact another “tax repatriation holiday.” History and facts show clearly that a tax holiday allowing corporations to pay sharply reduced taxes on profits they bring back to the United States would only further our long term deficit, fill corporate treasuries, and do little to create jobs.  Sadly, certain members of Congress aren’t interested in these facts.

They oppose sensible legislation that would put end to the outrageous drain on the U.S. treasury caused by offshore tax abuses.  Robbing taxpayers of roughly $100 billion a year in revenue, offshore tax abuse not only undermines public confidence in our tax system, but widens the deficit and increases the tax burden on middle America.  

The Chamber is seeking also to eviscerate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), one of the most important and effective post-Watergate anti-bribery laws prohibiting corporations from bribing foreign officials abroad to retain business.  Enacting the Chamber’s so-called “reforms” would only undermine the integrity of foreign governments and tacitly allow bribery.  As always, the Chamber has the ear of many in Congress.

Public officials are even hesitant to hold themselves accountable.  After a string of wrongheaded court decisions striking down critical domestic anti-bribery statues such as the illegal gratuities and honest services statutes, it remains an uphill battle to convince some lawmakers that public official malfeasance merits sanction.

Meanwhile thanks to Citizens United, corporate treasuries have been unleashed to flood our elections with millions of dollars in secret money to elect politicians to further serve their interests rather than the public interest.

It’s a pity the OWS and Tea Party movements have yet to move beyond their political differences and find common ground on these and other issues.  We should all be working in concert to press our public officials for more responsible and ethical policy decisions.

Even Tea Party cause célèbre Sarah Palin has been striking a remarkably populist tone of late. Just this September, Palin gave a stump speech in Iowa railing against the Washington establishment.  Some of the language she employed caught my attention.  She lashed out against the “capitalism of connections and government bailouts … influence peddling and corporate welfare … the collusion of big government and big business and big finance to the detriment of all the rest – to the little guys.”  Sounds a lot like what we are hearing from the OWS movement.

Recently, while waiting for a meeting with a Senate staffer, an elderly couple from the Midwest arrived for their scheduled tour of the Capitol Building.  I peered up from my Blackberry while they waited for their tour guide and thought fondly of the days when it was my job to escort visitors from back home. 

I then noticed the gentleman eyeing me when all of the sudden he asked, “Who are you peddling for?  Wall Street?  Pharmaceuticals?”  I chuckled instinctively.  It’s actually the same question I ask myself when I see fancy suits roaming the halls of Congress (I should add my suit is from H&M … very cheap). 

“No,” I responded and said the first thing that came to mind, “I work for you.”  I handed him my card and he read aloud, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.  “Well I’ll be damned,” he replied, clearly surprised.  “We need an army of people like you.”  Indeed.

Senator Dick Durbin spoke the hard truth about Washington during deliberations over financial reform legislation in 2009:  “And the banks – hard to believe in a time when we're facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created - are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place."  It’s still true.  And it’s not just the banks.  Pharmaceutical companies, big oil and gas, powerful hedge fund and investment firms, etc.  This is where the OWS movement, the Tea Party and CREW all see eye-to-eye.  All across the country citizens are protesting decades of greed on Wall Street and the politicians who put corporate interests above average Americans.  Yet, even after one of the greatest financial disasters since the Great Depression it seems Congress isn’t done serving corporate interests. 

When will Congress press as hard to protect the rest of us?

As CREW noted previously, combined, the campaign committees of the three Republican House members on the super committee raised more than double the amount they raised in the third quarter of 2009, indicating a super committee position does increase contributions.  Now, the reports for all super committee members and their PACs are out and the results are compelling. 

The House GOP PACs raised more than three times what they raised in the same quarter in 2009, collectively increasing their take from $94,000 to $286,000.  

Rep. Fred Upton’s (R-MI) Trust PAC raised more than seven times what it raised in 2009, increasing its take from $7,500 to $54,500 this year.  Between his PAC and campaign committee, Rep. Upton raised 170% more than he did in 2009, the largest increase of any super committee member.  Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) was right behind him with a 120% increase in PAC contributions, from $81,325 to $178,550, and an overall increase of 163%.  Finally, Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) increased his PAC fundraising by nearly 1000%, moving from $5,000 in 2009 to $52,700 this year, though his overall fundraising increased by only 46%. 

Some of this undoubtedly can be attributed to the Republicans’ taking control of the House, but the numbers indicate super committee membership is a factor.  A review of the FEC reports of fellow House GOP committee chairmen who are not on the super committee shows increases in contributions to their PACs, but not to the extent of super committee members.   Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX), Transportation Committee Chairman John Mica (R-FL), and Education and Workforce Committee Chairman John Kline (R-MN) saw their PACs raise 56%, 49%, and 28% more, respectively, from 2009 to 2011, compared to the super committee members who all increased  their PAC fundraising by over 120%.  Additionally, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), the former chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee, unsurprisingly, saw a 64% decrease in his PAC contributions, which suggests Chairman Upton’s 170% uptick was disproportionately high.   

As for the Senate, Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT)’s contributions also increased following his super committee appointment.  Sen. Baucus’ Glacier PAC increased its take by 42%, from $77,000 in 2009 to $109,000 this year, and his campaign committee and PAC together increased their fundraising by 16%.  Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) raised $144,250 for his PAC in the third quarter of 2011; he did not have a PAC in 2009.  The PACs belonging to the four other senators on the super committee file their reports on a biannual basis, and their totals will not be available until January 2012.

House Democrat PACs collectively reported a 52% drop in contributions, no doubt due to their newfound minority status.  Although all three House Democrats reported drops in their individual PAC fundraising, CREW noted previously, contributions to Rep. Becerra’s campaign committee increased 11%, and he increased his overall contributions by 4%.

In total, the super committee members’ PACs increased their fundraising from nearly $400,000 in 2009 to nearly $650,000 this year, a 62% increase.  In contrast, the super committee members’ campaign committees decreased the amount they raised by 48%, from a combined $5.3 million in 2009 to $2.8 million this year, largely a result of the decrease in fundraising by Sens. Pat Toomey (R-PA), Rob Portman (R-OH), and Patty Murray (D-WA) who were running for election in 2010, and Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) who has sworn off fundraisers while sitting on the committee.

These latest PAC fundraising reports confirm CREW’s earlier prediction that special interests are willing to pay for access to members of the committee.  Since most of the PAC money came directly from special interests or from lobbyists who represent the special interests, it’s clear that super committee members are continuing to raise money from groups likely to be affected by the committee’s vast mandate

Take the case of Credit Suisse, UBS, and HSBC — three of the big banks, all either under investigation or already indicted for tax evasion.  

Read about the cases against them:

• Credit Suisse
• UBS
• HSBC

You would think the scarlet “I” for indicted painted on these companies would make them unpopular among lawmakers.  Think again.

Collectively, the three banks gave $111,000 in the month of September to various politicians , and in one instance, Credit Suisse gave Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL) $5,000.   That would be Spencer Bachus, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, the very committee charged with overseeing the banking industry. 

This is nothing new for Rep. Bachus. As Melanie discussed with CNN’s Anderson Cooper last year, most of the congressman’s contributions come from the industry he is supposed to be regulating. But he’s not alone, as CREW first reported last spring, the financial services committee has historically been a gold mine for political donations, and as a result, a frequent assignment for vulnerable members of Congress.

People can disagree about campaign finance laws, but can’t we all get behind the idea that politicians should not accepting contributions from companies accused of cheating the U.S. government?

With leaders in both parties talking a lot about the problem of our national debt, lawmakers could help start paying it down by donating this dirty money to the U.S. Treasury.

CREW first raised concerns about super committee fundraising in August given the committee’s vast mandate to determine which federally financed programs should be saved or jettisoned.  The release of the newest fundraising reports confirms CREW’s prediction that special interests are willing to pay for access to members of the committee.

Leading the pack, Rep. Camp dramatically increased this year’s take, raising 177% more in 2011 than he did in 2009.  Rep. Camp raised $254,000 in 2009, but took home a remarkable $704,000 this year.  CREW compared this year’s totals to 2009, the last non-election fundraising year.

Rep. Upton also capitalized on his appointment, increasing his fundraising from $162,000 in 2009 to $401,000 this year, an increase of nearly 150%.  Oddly enough, super committee co-chair Hensarling brought up the rear, raising $472,000 this year in contrast to $355,000 in 2009, only a 33% increase.

In contrast, the House Democrats on the committee combined to raise just $663,000 in the third quarter, a 15% decrease from 2009 to 2011.  Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA), whose appointment was featured in a fundraising solicitation shortly after his appointment, raised $203,000 in the third quarter, an 11% increase over the same period in 2009.  Both Reps. James Clyburn (D-SC) and Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) raised less money in 2011 than they did in 2009. 

The fact that the GOP regained control of the House surely accounts for some of the increase in Republican fundraising, but probably not the dramatic differences seen in the numbers for Reps. Upton and Camp.  Given the Democrats’ minority status, it is less surprising that fundraising was down for Reps. Clyburn and Van Hollen.  Of course, this makes Rep. Becerra’s 11% increase all the more notable, particularly in light of his aggressive effort to capitalize on his appointment to the committee.

Though the FEC has yet to publish most Senate reports, Senator John Kerry (D-MA) has submitted his third quarter report.  In September, following CREW’s call for a fundraising ban for super committee members, Sen. Kerry announced he would take a hiatus from fundraising while on the committee, and his reports bear that out: Sen. Kerry raised just $16,000 in the third quarter of 2011.

In August, CREW sent a letter to House and Senate leaders asking them to urge members of the super committee to refrain from fundraising while on the committee.   Sens. David Vitter (R-LA) and Dean Heller (R-NV) agreed that fundraising  on the committee threatens the public’s confidence in the committee’s product, sending a letter to that effect on September 7, 2011.   Unfortunately, as the new FEC reports show, some super committee members remain unmoved by this concern.  Instead of forgoing fundraising, they are relying on their appointments to raise even more money.

When the remaining forms for senators and PACs are publically available, CREW will update our findings to gauge the full extent of fundraising by super committee members. 

Rep. Cantor’s campaign committee and leadership PAC have been bankrolled by Wall Street since he was elected in 2000.  The financial industry has been his largest contributor, increasing donations to the congressman by 1,326% between the 2002 and 2010 election cycles.

So while Rep. Cantor may believe the Occupy Wall Street movement is “the pitting of Americans against Americans,” the reality is the movement is pitting Americans against his campaign contributors. 

Then, of course, there is Rep. Cantor’s wife, Diana, a fixture on Wall Street.  Ms. Cantor  served as a VP at Goldman Sachs, a Managing Director at New York Private Bank & Trust, and currently is a partner at Alternative Investment Management, LLC – a firm that “invests mainly in hedge funds and private equity funds.”