CREW: Senate and House Ethics Committee should investigate Countrywide loans to members of Congress

CREW has written to both the Senate and House Ethics Committees asking for investigations into members of Congress that may have received loans in violation of existing gift bans in light of a news report detailing favorable loan terms given to current and former public officials by Countrywide Financial. The letter can be found here.

According to Portfolio.com, Countrywide had a “V.I.P.” program that waived points, lender fees, and company borrowing rules for prominent people, including at least two members of the U.S. Senate, Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT) and Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND).

In 2003, Sen. Dodd received two loans under the program: $506,000 to refinance his Washington, D.C. home and $275,042 to refinance a Connecticut home. Countrywide waived three-eighths of a point on the first loan and one-fourth of a point on the second. The interest rate on the loans, which both started at 4.875% was reduced to 4.25% on the Washington home and 4.5% on the Connecticut home by the time the term of the loans began to run.

In 2004, Sen. Conrad borrowed $1.07 million to refinance his vacation home, a loan for which Angelo Mozilo, Countrywide’s chief executive, ordered a Countrywide employee to “take off 1 point.” Later that year, Sen. Conrad refinanced an eight-unit apartment building he owned with his brothers in North Dakota. A former Countrywide employee told Portfolio that the loan violated Countrywide’s normal policy of providing loans only for buildings containing four or fewer units. An April 23, 2004 email from Countrywide’s CEO Anthony Mozilo told an employee to “make an exception due to the fact that the borrower is a senator.”

Although there is no evidence that either Sen. Dodd or Sen. Conrad were aware they were receiving special treatment from Countrywide, their receipt of the unusually favorable loans creates exactly the sort of appearance of impropriety that the gift rule was designed to address.

Moreover, given that “loans” are included in the definition of “gifts” in the Senate ethics manual, if they knew they were receiving loans from Countrywide on terms generally not available to the public, Sen. Dodd and Sen. Conrad may have violated Senate gift rules.

CREW has asked that the Senate Ethics Committee investigate Senators Dodd and Conrad, and that both the Senate and House Ethics committees look into whether any other members of Congress received similarly favorable loans from Countrywide. CREW also suggested the committees consider creating a system to review loans applied for by members, or create guidelines to ensure that loan terms meet the requirements of the gift rule.

Melanie Sloan, executive director of CREW, said:

Today’s story raises more questions than it answers. Did Senators Dodd and Conrad know they were getting particularly favorable loans? Were the terms of the loans too good to be true? Should the terms have raised a red flag for the senators? Is this the tip of the iceberg? Are there other public officials who received similarly beneficial loans? The fact that senators may have unknowingly received loans on terms not available to the public suggests that members of Congress need a way to vet their loans. The ethics committees should pro-actively establish such a vetting process or at least guidelines for members of Congress seeking loans. The public needs to have confidence that members of Congress are not taking advantage of their elected positions to get better deals on their mortgages.

CREW's party Affiliation

Toward the end of an on-line Washington Post article about Country Wide, the authors refer to CREW as "left leaning". I have always believed that CREW was completely non-partisan. CREW's own website is quite vague on the subject and only states that Crew will investigate regardless of party affiliation. Is CREW completely non-partisan or are they in fact left leaning in a political sense? It seems that the authors imply political leaning and not simply a reformist outlook.

To Republicans and McSame Supporters

Are you tired of spending your hard earned money on torture?

Yes, you are spending your money to torture people. Your tax dollars, and mine, go to fund the shenanigans in Gitmo and elsewhere.

How does that make you feel? Is it easier to just deny the whole thing, like Bush himself did for so long? Or are you brave enough to face the widespread moral atrocities we are committing that are not even making us safer? To the contrary, our torture has seriously damaged our reputation and prestige, and it has been used as a helpful recruiting tool by the very terrorists it is designed to hurt.

Immoral. Dumb. That about sums up how our government is spending our money on torture.

PS Torture is not even a necessary or effective means to get information out of people. Just look at our disgusting Republican friend Jack Abramoff who readily is squealing like a pig to investigators about his Republican cohorts in crime. Nope, Jack did not require any torturing, just a good healthy well-deserved prison sentence: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/jack_abramoff_sentencing_set_f.php

Our government wisely determined as early as the Civil War and then WWII that it is not wise to torture your enemies. Seems like this is a lesson ignored by our brilliant Republicans today, including Bush and his roundtable of top officials who routinely authorized torture down to specific techniques.

If I were a Republican, I'd be irate at this. And a good number of them are. If you are a Republican, where is your outrage? Or is all this just fine, ya know, just "liberal" (ooooohh) blathering. Stupid liberals. Saying that makes some people feel very good about themselves while the rest of us suffer from the real stupidity.

Sorry if this sounds harsh, but when reality is harsh it's better to face it than wimp out.

About CREW

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington uses high-impact legal actions to target government officials who sacrifice the common good to special interests. Receive email updates:
Optional Member Code

Ethics in the News