The Senate Ethics Committee doesn’t operate on warp speed. Nearly two years after CREW asked the committee to look into a case involving Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA), the panel finally concluded its investigation. CREW received the committee’s letter yesterday.

The letter cleared the senator of any wrongdoing related to an earmark she obtained for a company called Voyager Expanded Learning. But there’s a very interesting footnote to this case.

Political campaigns do not routinely make "donations" to the U.S. Treasury for the good of the country. So what explains why Landrieu’s campaign contributed $25,300 to the U.S. Treasury on August 7, 2008? (See page 233 of this FEC report.)

Why the Landrieu campaign made this “donation” is a mystery. And its timing is very interesting – only a few months before the ethics panel reached its conclusion. Did this donation make it easier in some way for the Senate Ethics Committee to declare the issue "resolved"? It would be interesting to see how Landrieu’s office answers this question.

By the way, the Ethics Committee letter is completely devoid of any analysis as to how it reached its finding. The letter simply states that whatever response the committee received from Landrieu led it to declare “the matter to be resolved.”

CREW’s Melanie Sloan had this take on the committee's decision:

“What a relief to know the Senate ethics committee did not completely forget about CREW’s complaint – filed nearly two years ago – against Sen. Landrieu for accepting campaign donations from someone for whom she earmarked funds. No grass growing under the committee’s feet. We are shocked, shocked to see Sen. Landrieu absolved of wrongdoing.”

Click here for CREW’s original Jan. 8, 2008 complaint, which detailed our concerns.

The House Office of Congressional Ethics is conducting six investigations right now.  But, besides the case of Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., we don't know who is being investigated. According to today's Roll Call (sub req), we may know in mid-July or we may never know:

The six investigations nearing completion — all approved for second-phase review in late March or early April — are scheduled to end as early as May 10, although each is eligible for a two-week extension that would push their completion to late May.

Once those probes are completed, the OCE’s board must vote “as soon as practicable” on its recommendation to the ethics committee, along with reports on the allegations.

But those reports, and any recommendations issued by the OCE’s board — chaired by ex-Rep. David Skaggs (D-Colo.) and co-chaired by ex-Rep. Porter Goss (R-Fla.) — remain confidential for another 45 calendar days once they reach the House ethics committee.

That timeline translates to a public release date of no earlier than mid-July for the half-dozen investigations now under way, but could be even longer if the House ethics panel opts to delay publicizing the reports for an additional 45 days, which it is allowed to do.

Although the House ethics panel is required to issue a public statement if it utilizes the 45-day delay, the committee has not issued rules specifying what information it would include in such a statement, such as the names of Member or House aides or employees under review.

And the reports could remain confidential for a longer period, if the House ethics panel opts to form an investigative subcommittee to review the allegations. In such a scenario, the report could be withheld for up to a one-year period, although the ethics committee must announce the creation of a subcommittee along with the name of the accused and the nature of the violation.

In addition, in some instances, the reports could remain permanently confidential. In the event the OCE recommends the investigation be dismissed, and the ethics committee reaches the same conclusion, the reports will not be publicly released.

Somehow, this all feels like nothing has really changed.  The House sure protects its own.

Same old game in the U.S. House of Representatives:

Over the past three weeks, Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) has filed three privileged resolutions calling for a House ethics committee probe into the connection between earmarks and campaign contributions.

The House voted down one of Flake’s resolutions Thursday. On Friday, he filed the same resolution again, forcing another vote this week.

The rat-a-tat resolutions are aimed at the relationship between Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) and PMA Group, a lobby shop raided by federal authorities last year. But they’re also a not-so-subtle shot at Pelosi, who as minority leader personally filed a dozen privileged resolutions calling for ethics investigations into former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), former Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) and other Republicans.

“We are just doing to them what they did to us,” a top House Republican aide said of the current GOP strategy. “If it was good enough then, it’s good enough now.”

The Republicans have stopped short of filing formal complaints against any Democratic member — a move that would require a response by the House ethics committee.

Here's an idea for members of Congress:  Instead of playing politics with the ethics issue, use the ethics process in the House to crack down on ethics violations.  File a complaint.  But, that won't happen:

The Republicans have stopped short of filing formal complaints against any Democratic member — a move that would require a response by the House ethics committee.

Republicans say they don’t want to ignite a full-blown ethics war like the one that dominated the House in the 1990s, but there’s another cause for their caution: If they were to file a complaint against Murtha or anyone else, Democrats would retaliate by filing their own complaints against Reps. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.) and Don Young (R-Alaska).

Members of Congress will not police themselves.

Yesterday, we got the shocking news that the House Ethics Committee deferred action on the ethics complaint against Rep. Vito Fossella.  Today comes word that Fossella could be representing his district from a jail cell: 

If Rep. Vito Fossella (R-N.Y.) is unable to reach a deal with prosecutors on his DUI arrest, he will likely have to serve five days in jail before the end of the year, making him only the fourth sitting member of Congress to be locked up following a criminal conviction and dragging his troubles back into the spotlight just as Republicans were counting on them having vanished.

Not since Rep. John Dowdy (D-Texas) was sent to prison for his 1972 conviction for bribery, obstruction of justice and perjury has a sitting member of the House been sentenced to jail or prison following a criminal conviction, according to the House historian.

Just this morning, CREW announced we were sending an ethics complaint against Rep. Vito Fossella to the House Ethics Committee.

The New York Daily News is reporting on that development:

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington announced today it sent an ethics complaint against Rep. Vito Fossella to the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct seeking an investigation into whether he violated any travel rules and/or the prohibition on conduct that reflects badly on the body.

As is The Hill:

An ethics watchdog group filed a formal ethics complaint against Rep. Vito Fossella (R-N.Y.) on Monday.

The first official complaint against the Staten Island Republican, filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), asks the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to investigate whether Fossella violated any House rules when he traveled overseas with retired Air Force Lt. Col. Laura Fay.

Melanie Sloan released the following statement today following the House Ethics Committee's announcement that it would begin an investigation into the activities of Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ) who was indicted last week:

The House Ethics Committee has demonstrated its irrelevance once again by announcing an investigation of a member of Congress – Rick Renzi (R-AZ) already indicted by the Department of Justice. 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. Mr. 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.

Yesterday, CREW today sent a letter to the House Ethics Committee, requesting an investigation into whether Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO) violated House rules by improperly threatening two constituents who revealed that Rep. Lamborn had accepted campaign contributions from the gaming industry.  The letter and other documents can be found here.

On August 24, 2007, a community newspaper in Colorado printed a letter from Jonathan and Anna Bmiha that raised concerns about Rep. Lamborn's receipt of campaign contributions in the amount of $1 ,000 from International Game Technology ("IGT") PAC and $500 from Marc Murphy, an executive of Bronco Billy's Casino in Cripple Creek, Colorado. IGT makes gambling equipment. Reports filed with the Federal Election Commission confirm that Rep. Lamborn's campaign committee received the contributions.

In apparent response to the letter, Rep. Lamborn placed two separate calls to the Bartha's home telephone number and in each case left a voice message when no one answered the phone. Emery, The Denver Post, Sept. 2,2007. In his first message, Rep. Lamborn alleged that the couple's letter contained "something that is blatantly false," urged them to call him "at your earliest convenience" and stated "there are consequences to this kind of thing."

In his follow-up message, Rep. Lamborn stated, "I'd rather resolve this on a Scriptural level but if you are unwilling to do that I will be forced to take other steps ..."

Today's edition of The Hill reports that Rep. Lamborn has apologized to the couple, but that there could still be ethical implications:

Ken Gross, an ethics lawyer at Skadden Arps, Slate, Meagher, and Flom, said Lamborn’s voice mails do not appear to cross any legal lines, although it’s not something “you necessarily want repeated on the front page of the paper.”

Former ethics committee chairman Hefley, however, disagreed. While it would be unlikely for the ethics committee to launch an investigation of the matter on its own, he said, the panel would be more likely to start looking into such a matter if it received a complaint letter from the couple involved.

After reading Lamborn’s apology letter at press time, Anna Bartha said the couple’s feelings haven’t changed.

Yesterday, House MInority Leader John Boehner demonstrated the new-found outrage of his caucus on the issue of ethics.  Boehner really wants an ethics investigation of Rep. Jefferson.  Now, keep in mind, there were no ethics investigations of former GOP Representatives Randy "Duke" Cunningham and Bob Ney.  But Boehner wants more -- now:

The Republican resolution called for the ethics committee to investigate Jefferson, who was indicted Monday on 16 counts of bribery and corruption. The resolution, which specifically called on the committee to look into whether Jefferson should be expelled, passed 373-26. Also, 13 members, including members of the ethics committee, voted “present.”

Republicans stressed that Democrats had not renewed the ethics subcommittee investigating Jefferson since taking power five months ago. They noted that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) prevented the subcommittee from being named because she did not select potential members for investigative subcommittees until Tuesday – after Jefferson was indicted.

“It’s somewhat of a sad state of affairs that this committee wasn’t formed until today and it took this indictment to get this subcommittee named,” said House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio).

It's somewhat of a sad state of affairs that the Ethics Committee hasn't done anything for years.  Therein lies the bigger problem.  And, even now, it takes an indictment for the Ethics Committee to launch an investigation.   

Yesterday, the U.S. House adopted a new standard for ethics investigations: an indictment warrants an automatic investigation.   We also learned that the House Ethics Committee is undertaking an investigation of the recently indicted Congressman from Louisiana, William Jefferson: 

Under pressure from Republicans, the House ethics committee announced Tuesday it would open an inquiry into the conduct of Representative William J. Jefferson, who relinquished his sole committee assignment in the wake of his indictment on corruption charges.

“Allegations such as these are extremely serious,” said Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Democrat of Ohio and chairwoman of the ethics panel. “It is always an issue of concern when a sitting elected official is charged with a crime.”

The committee sought to pre-empt Republican leaders, who later Tuesday forced a House vote on a resolution calling for the panel to investigate Mr. Jefferson’s conduct and recommend whether he should be expelled from the House. Democrats countered with a proposal that would require the ethics committee to automatically investigate any lawmaker under indictment or report within 30 days why it had chosen not to. Both proposals were approved overwhelmingly by the House.

Based on reporting from The Politico, it appears the House is setting in motion an ethics committee investigation of Rep. William Jefferson.   Could that mean the House Ethics Committee is actually going to do something?  We'll see.  Apparently, even that moribund committee can't ignore a 16 count indictment:

Democrats are also expecting the House ethics committee to announce that it is beginning an investigation into Jefferson's case, said the leadership aides. Pelosi will first have to select 10 Democrats for an "ethics pool," something Republicans have already done. Then a four-member investigative subcommittee on Jefferson can be created -- one Democrat and one Republican from the ethics committee itself, and then one Democrat and one Republican from the ethics pool. The investigative subcommittee would review the 16-count federal indictment handed down by the Alexandria, Va., grand jury on Monday and then report back whether Jefferson should be expelled.

Update - Here are the House Democrats selected for the "ethics pool," which means one of them is likely to be named to an investigative subcommittee reviewing the Jefferson case. This list was just released on the House floor: "INVESTIGATIVE SUBCOMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS - Pursuant to clause 5(a)(4)(A) of rule, and the order of the House of January 4, 2007, the Chair announced that the Speaker had named the following Members of the House to be available to serve on investigative subcommittees of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct for the 110th Congress: Baldwin of Wisconsin; Crowley of New York; Ellison of Minnesota; Honda of California; Inslee of Washington; Lee of California; Meeks of New York; Napolitano of California; Rothman of New Jersey; and Snyder of Arkansas."

 

Pelosi and Democratic leaders are trying to pre-empt a privileged resolution to be offered by Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) calling on the ethics panel to take action against Jefferson. The ethics committee announced last Congress that it was looking into the Jefferson matter, long before his indictment, but no action was never taken, and the probe was not reauthorized in this Congress.