CREW has talked a lot about the mysterious C Street House in Washington, D.C., the house's connection to the shadowy group called "the Fellowship," and its list of ethically tainted ex-residents. In this Sunday editorial, the New York Times reminds us of some of those former residents:

The $1.8 million townhouse came to public notice last year when three recent tenants — Senator John Ensign; Mark Sanford, the South Carolina governor and former congressman; and former Representative Charles Pickering Jr. — were embroiled in marital infidelity scandals. Mr. Pickering was accused by his estranged wife of entertaining a mistress at the house.

Of course, the ethical concerns swirling around Ensign and Sanford go well beyond infidelity itself.

In this TV report last week, CREW's Melanie Sloan was interviewed about C Street House. The Times editorial agrees with CREW and with a group of Ohio clergy that has filed a lawsuit challenging the C Street House's right to have a tax exemption:

The C Street Center does not offer the public services, religious teachings and ecclesiastical structure of a church. It also does not have to reveal its source of income to the I.R.S., including what individuals, corporations or political groups might subsidize the place.

Family values, human frailty and forgiveness are the stuff of spiritual counseling that evangelical tenants claim goes on privately inside the C Street Center. All well and good, but that does not make a church of a boarding house nor require a tithing of taxpayers.

Critics enjoy slamming the Washington bureaucracy for moving so slowly, but the wheels don't seem to turn any faster in South Carolina. More than two months and one week after the State Ethics Commission charged Gov. Mark Sanford with 37 ethics violations, the panel has yet to hold a single hearing on the charges.

And don't expect one soon. Herbert Hayden, the commission's executive director, told The State newspaper why hearings have not yet begun.

The commissioners all have day jobs, Hayden said, and the Sanford hearing is expected to be a long day.

"It's strictly a scheduling issue," Hayden said, "With the assumed length of the hearing, it's going to have to be a special day set aside."

However, the case could be disposed of before a hearing if Sanford and the Ethics Commission agree to a settlement.

At this rate, I'm beginning to wonder if a new governor will be elected by the time the S.C. commission completes hearings on its own charges.

If you need a reminder as to why Gov. Sanford is such an ethically disgraced official, click here, go to page 4 and read "Gov. Mark Sanford's Excellent Argentinian Adventure."

CREW today sent a letter to C-SPAN chairman and CEO Brian Lamb, asking that his network not air tomorrow’s National Prayer Breakfast, or at least properly identify the event’s sponsor as the shadowy religious organization known as “the Fellowship” or “the Family.”

The National Prayer Breakfast is often misconstrued by the public as an official government event, a mistake reinforced by the plethora of presidential seals throughout the room, a yearly presidential address, and an organizing committee of members of Congress. In reality, the event is a recruiting and networking tool for the Family – a cult-like religious organization that has pushed an unorthodox brand of Christianity within powerful political, military and economic circles around the world for 50 years.

The Family is linked – via its infamous C Street House – to highly unethical members of Congress, including Sens. John Ensign (R-NV) and Tom Coburn (R-OK), Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC), Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-KS), and former Rep. “Chip” Pickering (R-MS). The organization’s members have also been behind the deplorable Ugandan anti-gay legislation calling for the death penalty for anyone convicted of having gay sex.

CREW’s executive director, Melanie Sloan, said:

“The mere fact that C-SPAN, which is dedicated to political coverage, broadcasts the breakfast contributes to the notion that it is an official government event. Viewers see images of a ballroom filled with presidential paraphernalia and high-ranking government officials, and the words ‘National Prayer Breakfast’ appearing on the bottom of their screens. By airing this, C-SPAN may be unwittingly contributing to the false perception the breakfast is government-sponsored and sanctioned. At a minimum, C-SPAN should label the event as sponsored by the Family and provide some context so viewers can fully appreciate what they are seeing: our top government leaders lending legitimacy to a shadowy, intolerant religious organization.”

Today’s letter follows a letter to the president and congressional leadership on Monday calling for a boycott of the event. Click here to read CREW’s letter to C-SPAN, click here to read CREW’s letter from Monday.

By a margin of 102-11, the South Carolina House of Representatives has voted to censure its ethically disgraced governor. According to the Associated Press:

Before the vote, (Gov. Mark) Sanford said he wouldn't attend the session or watch and would have no comment. "It is what it is," Sanford said.

... The censure requires state Senate approval for passage.

... In addition to the censure, Sanford also faces up to $74,000 in fines from the State Ethics Commission, which contends he broke more than three dozen laws involving travel in pricey airline seats, using state aircraft for personal and political trips and improper reimbursements.

Gov. Sanford's serious ethical lapses were cited last month by CREW when we released our Top Ten Ethics Scandals of 2009. Click here to read this document -- the Sanford scandal is summarized on page 4.

The South Carolina House of Representatives is expected to vote today on a resolution that formally censures Gov. Mark Sanford for "dereliction in his duties of office as Governor and for official misconduct that has brought dishonor to himself."

Click here to read the text of the resolution that the SC House will consider.

A state House committee declined last month to approve an impeachment resolution, opting instead to support a censure of the GOP governor.

The state House of Representatives in South Carolina is expected to vote next week on a motion to censure Gov. Mark Sanford for his serious ethical lapses. But here's the catch.

The SC Senate might not vote on censure for several weeks -- or it might never vote. That's the assessment of Senate President Pro Tem Glenn McConnell, who suggested to a newspaper that it's no big deal whether the state Senate votes on censure or not:

At the end of the day, what does it matter? Either you approve or disapprove. I don't know anybody (in the Senate) who supports (Sanford's) behavior."

But McConnell is missing the point. There is value in having both houses of the Legislature go on the record with a formal vote of censure. If nothing else, doing so reaffirms the Legislature's commitment to holding state officials accountable.

If both houses of the SC Legislature have the time to vote on a resolution honoring a Union County library for being named "the best small library in America," then surely both houses can take the time to vote on the motion to censure Gov. Sanford.

In case you missed it, CREW named the Sanford scandal one of its Top Ten Ethics Scandals of 2009.

Last month, CREW announced its legal settlement restoring and preserving White House emails from the George W. Bush years. It was a nice victory. But what about state government? Are governors and other state officials preserving emails and other records?

This issue has come to light in South Carolina, whose legislature has been probing the serious ethical issues surrounding Gov. Mark Sanford. John O'Connor, a reporter for The State newspaper, writes:

Questions about Sanford's activities led to scrutiny of past administrations and lawmakers.

Reporters and attorneys digging through state archives found that many records no longer existed. The S.C. Department of Archives and History recommends which records should be preserved. But director Eric Emerson said his agency does not have the staff to make sure state agencies are complying with the rules.

And, even worse, the Legislature has yet to insist on stronger recordkeeping rules for state officials:

Lawmakers investigating the governor this summer compared missing records to the destruction of evidence. But none of the legislation so far filed in response to the Sanford scandal addresses the preservation of e-mail and other documents.

Who knows -- maybe Jenny Sanford, the first lady of South Carolina, intends to do that when she gets the initial copy of her soon-to-be-published memoir, Staying True.

CNN reports that the memoir, set to hit bookstores on Feb. 5, will give the public "the other side of the story" related to Gov. Mark Sanford's (R-SC) sex scandal.

According to a synopsis from the publisher's website:

"[Jenny Sanford] chose to let Mark Sanford deal with the embarrassment and political fallout from his own actions while focusing her own efforts privately on raising their children to be men of character, even in the face of the lies their father has told ..."

As 2009 draws to a close, CREW is looking back at what quickly became a busy year for ethical lapses in our federal government. Today, CREW released its list of the Top Ten Ethics Scandals of 2009 – a roundup of the year’s most outrageous government scandals.

The unranked list includes:

Believe us – we had a plethora of scandals to choose from.

Melanie Sloan, CREW’s executive director, explained CREW’s hopes for the new year:

It would be nice if 2010 proved to be the year politicians put Americans’ interests above their own, but I won’t hold my breath.

Click here (PDF) to read CREW’s Top Ten Ethics Scandals of 2009.

According to the Associated Press:

South Carolina lawmakers voted Wednesday to formally rebuke Gov. Mark Sanford, again sparing him from impeachment over secret trips to see his Argentine mistress and his use of state planes.

The House Judiciary Committee unanimously agreed to censure the governor for bringing "ridicule, dishonor, disgrace and shame" to the state. Though scathing, the rebuke has no practical effect on Sanford’s ability to govern for the 13 months that remain in his term.

... Despite pleas from some members to let the full House consider impeachment, the Judiciary Committee voted it down 18-6.