The House Ethics Committee does exist.  We learn, via The Hill, that a warning has been sent forth from that committee to House members about the upcoming inauguration.  Okay.  We'd like to see the House Ethics Committee deal with the ethics complaints we've filed. If they're meeting to talk about inauguration parties, surely they could find time to discuss the ethical transgression of some House members:

Rep. Gene Green (D-Texas), the acting chairman of the panel and Rep. Doc Hastings (Wash.), the ranking Republican, issued a memo Thursday afternoon after receiving inquiries about whether lobbyists or other private groups could pay for inauguration and swearing-in receptions in members’ honor.

“Such arrangements are not permissible as the payment of the costs of the event would constitute an impermissible gift to the member under the House gift rule,” warned the senior members of the panel.

Ethics rules, however, do allow members to use campaign funds to host swearing-in receptions for supporters in their House offices or another House room as long as the events are not campaign-related. For instance, the invite-list for such events cannot be limited to campaign contributors, according to the memo. Campaign funds also can be used to pay for inaugural receptions in House offices “or elsewhere,” an apparent allowance for off-campus events.

This morning, CREW sent a letter to the House Ethics Committee asking for an investigation of the developing crisis of members illegally using official resources for campaign purposes.  This afternoon, the Crypt at the Politico did a post on our letter:

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) sent a letter to the House ethics committee today looking to turn up the thermostat on a reported investigation into the use of congressional resources for campaign purposes. “Something’s going on here,” said Naomi Seligman, CREW’s deputy director. “This has been a practice on the Hill that hasn’t been regulated.”

The letter asks the ethics committee to allow staffers to confidentially report being forced to do campaign work. Read the full text of the letter here.

As the U.S. House of Representatives continues its debate on how to proceed on ethics reform, an article in today's edition of The Hill is instructive.   Even though, the Senate is far from doing all the work on policing its members that needs to be done, that body is viewed as more aggressive on ethics issues.  Two former House members (Cunningham and Ney) are incarcerated.  Two more members (Jefferson and Renzi) are currently under indictment.  Despite that, again, the Senate is viewed as stronger on ethics:   

The Senate Ethics Committee has emerged as the tougher policeman of congressional behavior than its House counterpart, the Standards of Official Conduct Committee, which has become embroiled in a fracas over ethics enforcement in the lower chamber.

While the Senate has adopted guidelines that some experts say exceed even what is called for in the ethics reforms Congress passed last year, the House has interpreted the law more literally. As a result, government watchdog groups say, the House has opened wide loopholes in ethics rules.

Okay, you know it's a tough editorial when the headline says the House Ethics Committee is "making a mockery" of the new ethics law.  But, it's true:

Under its new Democratic leadership last year, Congress passed legislation barring members from taking gifts from lobbyists or their clients. This included a ban on lawmakers attending parties thrown by lobbyists to "honor" them at political conventions.

Yet the House ethics committee -- its actions often belie its name -- has interpreted the law to let House members go to these bashes if there is more than one honoree. No, this is not a joke.

The Senate ethics committee, in its interpretation, ruled out this volume-discount approach buying access to senators.

The Orlando Sentinel wants Speaker Pelosi to step in and fix this.  She should. 

The House Ethics Committee actually exists.  It ruled in the case against Rep. Bob Filner. Okay, the Committee didn't really do anything but issue a mild little reprimand.  So now that the House Ethics Committee is working, when can we expect action against Rep. Jefferson, Rep. Jerry Lewis. Rep. Doolittle, Rep. Renzi, Rep. Lamborn, Rep. Hastings, Rep. Wilson....???

The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, which established an investigative subcommittee earlier this fall to look into an incident between the congressman and an airline employee, ruled that Filner "demonstrated poor judgment" when he got into an altercation with a United employee at Dulles International Airport over the summer.

Filner entered a so-called Alford plea to trespassing in November, days before he was scheduled to appear before a Virginia judge, meaning he acknowledged the evidence against him without officially admitting his guilt. He also wrote a letter apologizing to the airline employee and paid a $100 fine.

In light of those actions, the House ethics panel refrained from any further action.

The House Ethics Committee is actually taking some action.  Under new House rules, the committee had to do something because Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA) was arrested and charged with a crime:

The investigation was triggered by a new House ethics rule Democrats sponsored and passed in early June in the wake of Rep. William Jefferson’s (D-La.) indictment on 16 counts of bribery and corruption. The rule requires the ethics committee to either empanel an investigative subcommittee or review the allegations and submit a report to the House describing its reasons for not doing so “not later than 30 days” after a member is indicted or charged with a crime.

According to Jones and Hastings’s statement, the Loudoun County court charged Filner with misdemeanor assault and battery “on or about August 20, 2007.” The incident allegedly took place Aug. 19.

Filner, who was on his way to Iraq at the time of the incident, has said he was tired and has called the charges “ridiculous.”