Brace yourself. What you're going to read next may come as a total shock. 

Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-W.Va.) said today that the moribund House Ethics Committee has once again found itself in a deadlock on what cases to pursue. After a year and many months of inaction, we wouldn't be surprised if staffers had spotted tumbleweeds blowing through the cavernous meeting room of the committee.

"Today the committee met for six hours to consider potential investigative matters, and the sole action that the committee agreed to take was to continue an investigation that was initiated in 2004, at the end of the last Congress," said Rep. Mollohan. "This result falls far short of the committee's obligations in the current circumstances." [Congress Daily]

Former Deputy Chief of Staff to Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas), Tony Rudy, pleaded guilty this morning to charges of conspiracy to corrupt public officials and defraud his lobbying clients. Rudy has also offered his cooperation in a federal probe that could extend into the halls of Congress, and right through the doorway of Rep. DeLay's office (or so we giddily hope).

SourceWatch reports that Rudy worked for DeLay's office until 2001, when he left for a job alongside Jack Abramoff (thanks to those rapidly turning revolving doors).

"The purpose of the conspiracy was for defendant Rudy and his coconspirators to unjustly enrich themselves,'' Justice Department prosecutors stated in the filing.

Did someone say "coconspirators"?

Headlines everywhere read that the U.S. Senate passed an ethics and lobbyist reform bill yesterday. If only the action matched the headline.

While the Senate certainly did pass a bill that was hyped as a significant ethics and lobbyist reform package, in reality it fell wildly short of the six basic benchmarks set out by the reform community for effective legislation.

The bill did substantially increase disclosure of lobbyist activities, and the Senate earned a “B” from our ethics coalition on this particular benchmark. And they earned a “C” for slowing the revolving door between government and lobbying organizations, by extending the current ban on direct lobbying of Congress by former members from one to two years. Unfortunately, they failed to broaden the scope of the ban to include all lobbying activities, including organizing and directing a lobbying campaign.

The bill also banned gifts, including meals, from lobbyists, but the Senate only earned a “C” for this because the ban does not include organizations that employ the lobbyists, nor does it prevent lobbyists paying for lavish parties to “honor” members.

That’s about as good as it gets, though, as the report card heads dramatically south after that. The Senate bill did nothing to stop private interests from funding Congressional travel, and earned an “F” on that benchmark. It likewise did nothing to break the lobbyist-money-lawmaker nexus, and earned another “F” there. Disclosure is all well and good, but if special interests and lobbyists who have business in front of Congress are still allowed to contribute and/or help raise millions in campaign contributions for those same members of Congress, then the system of legalized bribery remains intact. (As Public Citizen President Joan Claybrook has noted in the past, you don’t reduce accidents on a busy road simply by keeping better track of them.)

And regarding better enforcement of ethics rules, an area where Congress has been utterly missing in action for the last scandal-filled year, the Senate once again took a pass, and earned an “F.” They rejected the proposal for an independent Office of Public Integrity, offered by Sens. McCain (R-Ariz.), Collins (R-Maine), Lieberman (D-Conn.) and Obama (D-Ill.) by an astoundingly lopsided vote of 67 to 30. Clearly, they still just don’t get it.

The ethics coalition report card gave the Senate an overall grade of “D,” but I suspect they were grading on a curve. The coalition’s statement began with a more accurate assessment: “The United States Senate failed the American people today.”

This struggle is far from over, though. It will come up next in the House, and there are also bills for public financing of elections and other areas of reform that will come up later. The Clean Up Washington campaign will also be running a candidate accountability effort this fall, and you will hear more on that shortly.

And as the Abramoff bribery scandal investigation continues to unfold, (remember, yesterday’s sentencing was just for his wire fraud guilty plea in Florida), new developments could force Congress to focus again on the issue. In a darkly optimistic assessment, Sen. McCain noted “The good news is I think there will be more indictments. We will revisit the issue.”

There you have it, friends: the good news is that more members of Congress will be charged with crimes! Stay tuned to this website for updates, and the next steps in our continuing effort to Clean Up Washington – ‘cause it sure still needs it!

Lead Story:

The Senate approved legislation yesterday to disclose more information about their corrupting practices... while doing very little to actually stop them.  See today's blog for analysis, and for the complete scorecard on the Senate bill.

Corruption News:

As we mentioned in the blog yesterday, superlobbyist Jack Abramoff was sentenced to 5 years 10 months in prison for corruption and wire fraud in Miami.  More fun awaits Abramoff when he comes to Washington, D.C. to face additional charges for trying to buy off Congress.

Rep. Jim Ryun (R-Kan.) denies getting a sweetheart deal on the DC townhouse he purchased from a charity with ties to Abramoff.  His denial would be more convincing if he hadn’t paid only half the market value for the property. 

Breaking news from the Miami coutroom: admitted felon and former super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff, along with his former business partner Adam Kidan, has been sentenced to 5 years and 10 months in jail, for the guilty plea to charges of conspiracy and wire fraud in their purchase of the SunCruz fleet of gambling boats. The two have also been ordered to pay $21 million in restitution.

The sentence was the minimum allowed under the plea bargain Abramoff made with authorities. He will not begin serving his sentence until he is finished working with federal prosecutors in Washington on the wide-ranging scandal probe that could involve up to 20 members of Congress.

We can't resist reveling for just a moment in our lead story from the Corruption and Reform News Roundup (below), an LA Times report on the more than 250 letters of support that have been mailed to a U.S. District judge in Miami, asking for leniency in the sentencing of admitted felon and former super lobbyist Jack Abramoff. His family, friends, former colleagues, lawyer associates and even one member of Congress have written to Judge Paul C. Huck, describing him as a man characterized by acts of generosity, his devotion to family, and his deep religious faith.

To give just a few examples....

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif), the only member of Congress who chose to write, described Abramoff as a "selfless patriot" for his ardent anti-communism during the Cold War. (And it's worth noting that Abramoff had no qualms at all about working with Russian oil interests after the Cold War to advance their agenda in Washington - patriot that he is.)

A top aide on a Senate committee vouched for Abramoff as a "caring, pious, and generous man...."

Monty Warner, a GOP media strategist, said that Abramoff gave away "hundreds of meals" at his Washington restaurant Signatures. (Presumably in between all the meals where he was arranging bribes to members of Congress.)

Benigno R. Fitial, an Abramoff client and governer of the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands, who hired Abramoff to help preserve the abusive sweatshop labor conditions for foreign workers on his island, lauded the criminal who "championed our cause of democratic self-government and economic opportunity...."

Others noted how Abramoff invited 14 children and a rabbi to his sky box for a hockey game, opened a kosher restaurant in Washington "at great personal sacrifice" so observant Jews could have lunch or dinner "in comfort," or covered the medical bills of a rabbi's daughter injured in a car accident.

And Abramoff's 16-year-old son, Alex, added this tear-jerking appeal to Huck: "I personally do not know a lot about you or your morals, but I know that if you were to take a look into how my father leads his life, you would see that he is not the kind of person that should be sent to prison."

Goodness gracious, how did such a saintly man ever get in such trouble with the law? Is this perhaps some terrible mistake?

Of course the letter writers made no mention of the Indian tribes that Abramoff bilked out of millions of dollars, (the funding for his exemplary "generosity"), or the workers in the Marianas he helped keep in near slave-labor conditions for years, or the fact that he helped subvert our democratic system of government, and no doubt aided in the misappropriation of hundreds of millions if not billions of taxpayer dollars, thanks to his no-holds-barred, pay-to-play, blatantly illegal version of lobbying.

And while Abramoff can undoubtedly quote the Torah better than I can, I do happen to know that the Jewish religion contains more than a couple pieces of advice about leading an ethical life, teachings which Jack seemed to somehow miss along the way.

As part of his plea bargain, Abramoff agreed to a sentence of between 70 and 87 months in prison. No word yet on whether the outpouring of support for this moral giant will help reduce his sentence at all....

Lead Story:

Despite being the most forgotten man in Washington, Jack Abramoff still has connections — more than 250 of them, to be precise — including prominent lawyers, religious leaders and even a member of Congress.  With Abramoff scheduled to be sentenced in Miami tomorrow, supporters from around the country have written letters to the Judge asking for leniency.

Lobbying News:

It’s not just wealthy corporations and special interests that spend millions of dollars on lobbyists, now states are getting in on the game too.  After encouragement by Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), the Alaska state house approved spending $3.7 million to lobby Congress for opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling.

And neither it is just states that are lobbying hard to get on the appropriations gravy train.  Six Nevada cities have also hired lobbyists to represent them in Washington.  Analysts say that without a lobbyist, locals can be overlooked it comes time for Congress to decide where money's spent. (National corporations, states and now cities... we can't help wondering if this will end with every citizen having to hire their own personal lobbyist to have their voice heard in Congress....)

Editorials:

The Waco Tribune writes that the public needs to keep up pressure on Congress to enact strong lobbying reform.


The Bangor Daily News urges Congress to support the creation of an Office of Public Integrity in the lobbying and ethics reform bill being considered today.

Two weeks ago, Clean Up Washington activists took action  against a proposal to blow a huge loophole in campaign finance regulations on the internet. Thanks in part to our emails and phonecalls, the bill was pulled from consideration.

Today, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) dealt with this issue and passed what is generally a good regulation.

In its second attempt to grapple with campaign finance law and the Internet, the FEC finally stepped up to the plate and unanimously approved a reasonable regulation today that both protects the free speech rights of bloggers and preserves the integrity of the ban on soft money in federal elections. The FEC originally approved a regulation that poked a huge hole in the campaign finance law, allowing the unlimited use of otherwise illegal corporate and union money ("soft money") on the internet to promote or attack federal candidates. A federal district court rebuked the Commission and sent them back to the drawing board.

The final 96-page report on the regulation from the FEC's General Counsel can be summed up fairly succinctly: Paid political advertsiements placed on other people's Web sites must be paid for by money that is legal in federal elections -- that is, limited contributions from individuals and PACs. Political advocacy by bloggers on their own Web site is protected. Also protected is political advocacy via e-mail and of on-line media to avail themselves of the media exemption.

On the whole, the FEC regulation effectively strikes a fair balance. Hopefully, Congress wil recognize that the FEC has adequately dealt with the issue of campaign finance law and the Internet and will drop its effort to codify H.R. 1606, which would bring back the reckless soft money loophole that the FEC has now abandoned. (And if the anti-campaign finance reform contingent in the House does try to bring it up again, we'll be the first to let you know about it - and to take action!)

Lead Story:

The Washington Post reports today that members of Congress frequently channel private interests requesting government contracts or other legislative favors to friendly lobbyists.  In turn, those lobbyists can then send part of the fees collected from that special interest back to lawmakers in the form of campaign contributions, creating a mutually beneficial circle of influence. What might sound like a kickback to most of us is, incredibly enough, legal under House ethics rules.

Corruption News:

A law intended to help oil companies when energy prices were low has become a multi-billion dollar subsidy through careful lobbying by industry officials.  The story is a classic example of special-interest politics at work in Washington: the people who pay the closest attention and make the fewest mistakes are those with the most profit at stake.

NPR exposes how Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.) helped steer $3 million for a new school for the Saginaw Chippewa, a Michigan tribal client of Jack Abramoff.  Now the Republican senator from Montana finds himself facing strong primary and general election challenges back home.

According to Sunday’s Washington Post, a top adviser to Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas) received more than a third of all the money collected by the U.S. Family Network, a nonprofit organization the adviser created to promote a pro-family political agenda in Congress.

As reported Saturday, a Florida judge has approved subpoenas for superlobbyist Jack Abramoff and an ex-business partner to answer questions about the 2001 mob-style slaying of the owner of a gambling fleet they bought.



Editorial:

Rep. Martin Meehan (R-Mass) writes about the opportunity for lobby reform in the wake of the numerous ethics and lobbying scandals.

The more things change...?

President Bush's approval rating has been mired in the mid-30's for some time now, and Republican members of Congress who previously clung to his side whenever they could are now starting to avoid him at all costs.

Well, maybe not at all costs. Because even though most GOP Representatives and Senators are now declining to join the President when he visits their state to make policy speeches - who would want to spend the following several days defending the war in Iraq or the sale of our ports to a Dubai-owned company? - they DO seem more than willing to have Bush (and the even more unpopular Cheney) come raise millions in campaign cash for them.

As the AP details, Bush is the most aggressive fundraiser-in-chief in U.S. history. Having raised $140 million for Congressional candidates in the 2002 and 2004 elections, he has already raised $88 million for his party's candidates at 26 events in 2005 and 2006. (And the VEEP ponied up by headlining 47 fundraisers in the same period that brought in $16.6 million.)

Amusingly, this "fear the policy, love the money" connundrum has the GOPers in more contortions than a game of Twister. New Jersey GOP senate candidate Tom Kean, Jr., for instance, managed to show up a fundraiser for his campaign hosted by Dick Cheney - 15 minutes after the Vice-President had left. (He claimed that he got caught in traffic. Did the dog also eat his speech notes?)

What isn't so clear is what policies these Republican candidates will promote if (re)elected. Is it too cyncial to expect, as the old adage says, that they will continue to dance with those that brought 'em...?

Lead Story:

The Washington Post reports that the Pentagon will be conducting an internal investigation into how funding earmarks authored by admitted-felon and former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif.) benefited a defense contractor. We hope that results from this "internal study" will be made public.

Reform News:

The Christian Science Monitor provides an update on lobbying reform legislation, and guess what? It doesn't look good.

"Some members are pulling the blanket over their heads and hoping the storm will pass. For others, there is also a genuine belief that if you just jump in a spasm of reaction, you could do some things detrimental to a good deliberative process," says Norman Ornstein, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

It's increasingly clear that members of Congress will need some reminding that voters care about ethics in our government - from now through the election. Stay tuned to Clean Up Washington's action center for upcoming alerts.

Corruption News:

Yesterday's auctioning of corruption-earned gifts owned by former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif.) garnered $94,625 from buyers.

The New York state Democratic Party is asking Rep. John Sweeney (R-N.Y.) to answer inquiries into why his personal financial records have been pulled by the U.S. Justice Department. Some bloggers, reports the Glens Falls Post-Star, allege that the Justice Department may be investigating commissions received by Sweeney's wife in return for raising campaign contributions. But a representative from ethics watchdog group Common Cause suggested that this arrangement does not appear to be illegal.

The Associated Press notes that Rep. Russ Carnahan (D-Mo.) has been fined $600 by the Missouri Ethics Commission. The Commission also fined the Missouri House Democratic Campaign Committee $104,000 for violating several campaign finance laws.

Editorials:

Two newspapers today are joining the chorus of newspapers calling for Congress to enact real lobbying reform. The Oregon Union-Bulletin has thrown its support behind a proposal put forth by Representatives from that state. Reps. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) and Earl Blumenauer, (D-Ore.).  The Walden-Blumenauer proposal would create an independent ethics commission outside of Congress that would be made up of former members of Congress.

The Orlando Sentinel also chimes in, suggesting that Congress follow Florida's lead by banning lobbyists' gifts to members of Congress and their staff.

The "revolving door" that swings between the public and private sector is a major source of corruption and favoritism in our government. Corporate interests often try to plant their own executives in the governmental agencies that have oversight over their company, thus "capturing" that agency. Conversely, corporate interests also often provide employment in the private sector to public officials with oversight over the company, thus influencing their official actions while in office. It is not uncommon for retiring public officials to cash in on their public service by putting their networks and insider knowledge for sale to the highest  bidder as lobbyists.

As was mentioned in our news round-up, MSNBC reported yesterday on the abuse of the revolving door on Capitol Hill as it relates to the nuclear power industry. The report focuses on Alex Flint, a former staff director for the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, where he was a key player in legislation that provided billions of dollars in subsidies to the nuclear industry. Flint swung through the revolving door to become the chief lobbyist for the nuclear industry’s largest trade group, the Nuclear Energy Institute.

This is not the first time Flint used public service for personal gain.  He also served as a legislative assistant for Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.), who in 1996 named him majority staff clerk to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water. Four years later, Flint left to work for the lobbying firm of Johnston and Associates, whose clients then included NEI and many other  nuclear industry interests—only later to return to public service with the  Senate Energy and Natural resources Committee and, as noted above, again cash in through the revolving door.

You can learn more about the revolving door between the public and private sector on our website here.

Lead Story:

Regarding the revolving doors between government and the industries our government is supposed to be keeping an eye on, MSNBC reports that for some Senate staff, those doors just keep revolving. 

Alex Flint recently left the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, chaired by Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.), to take a lucrative lobbying position at the Nuclear Energy Institute.  This alone would be enough to raise eyebrows, but remarkably enough it is Mr. Flint's second time around.

He began working for Sen. Domenici as a staff assistant in college and moved to Washington to become a legislative assistant and later the majority staff clerk to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water in 1996. Four years later, Flint took a job at the lobbying firm of Johnston and Associates, whose clients then included many nuclear industry interests.

In the area of potentional ethical misconduct, it appears that another member of Congress, Rep. Mark Green (R-Wis.), might have some explaining to do, since his name came up in testimony during Wisconsin state Rep. Scott Jensen’s misconduct trial. Eric Grant, a Wisconsin state employee, testified that Green’s current chief of staff and campaign manager authorized or asked for campaign assistance from workers on state time.

And remember Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.), chairman of the moribund House Ethics Committee who helped purge the committee of staffers involved in admonishing Rep. DeLay in 2004? He is now facing an unexpected primary challenge in his re-election bid.  Claude Oliver announced Wednesday that he was running for Hastings' seat because of the Congressman’s “do-nothing” performance and lack of leadership on tough issues.

Editorials:

Talk of reform abounded among voters and the media in the wake of the Abramoff lobbying scandal, the ethical misconduct of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and the resignation of Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-Calif.) on bribery charges.  Certainly scandals as major and widespread as this would cause Congress to take on the corruption issue. Yet the Toledo Blade is asking the same question many of us have been wondering:  Where’s the lobbying reform?

The Washington Post reports that prosecutors will try to persuade a Texas appeals court Wednesday to reinstate some of the criminal charges against Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas), who is seeking re-election to Congress while under indictment.

In December, a judge threw out two of the three charges against DeLay on the grounds that the law allegedly violated did not exist at the time.  Prosecutors disagree, and the case goes before the Texas 3rd Court of Appeals later today.

Sen. Conrad Burns’ (R-Mont.) close ties to Jack Abramoff have led to an unexpected primary challenge for the three-term incumbent. 

State lawmaker Bob Keenan announced that he will challenge Burns because Republicans need a "viable option they can be proud of."  Burns has faced widespread criticism for taking nearly $150,000 from the indicted lobbyist, the most of any member of Congress. (Learn more about Sen. Burns at our Hall of Shame.)

The latest special interest group working against lobbying reform is the Washington, DC restaurant industry. 

According to the Los Angeles Times, lobbyist-funded meals for lawmakers and their staff has become big business at expensive restaurants around the Capitol.  Afraid of losing these lucrative lunch tabs, the Restaurant Association of Metropolitan Washington has been lobbying hard against a ban on meals. 

And finally, for those of you in the market for a new armoire, the AP reports that former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham's (R-Calif.) property is being auctioned off to the highest bidders in Los Angeles on Thursday. Reports the AP:

There is a leather sofa. A solid cherry sleigh bed. Nearly a dozen rugs. Marble-topped nightstands, armoires and sideboards, many featuring stained glass, brass fittings and intricate carvings.

Sounds like Duke spared no expense in furnishing his home with the spoils of corruption.

Rep. Tom DeLay’s (R-Texas) parade through the Texas legal system continues tomorrow as prosecutors seek to have charges of conspiracy and money laundering against the former House Majority Leader restored.  But if anything about DeLay’s legal situation has become clear, it’s that conflicts of interest shadow every step of the process.

You may remember that DeLay’s lawyers cried foul about the supposed liberal bias of the first judge assigned to the case last fall, eventually forcing District Judge Bob Perkins to recuse himself. (He had committed the grievous sin of making a contribution to MoveOn.) And then Administrative Judge B.B. Schraub, who replaced Perkins, recused himself when prosecutor Ronnie Earle raised bias questions about him: Schraub was appointed by Texas Governor Rick Perry, who was a strong DeLay ally in the Texas congressional redistricting that was the original raison d’etre for the alleged money-laundering.

Now the Houston Chronicle is raising questions about the political ties of the judges who sit on two different three-judge panels that are considering the potentially prosecution-ending appeals in DeLay’s case and that of his co-defendents, Jim Ellis and John Colyandro. 

According to the Texas Ethics Commission Justice Alan Waldrop, who sits on both panels, worked as a paid lobbyist for Texans for Lawsuit Reform (TLR) in 2002.  And surprise, surprise, it turns out that TLR worked closely with DeLay’s now infamous Texans for a Republican Majority PAC (TRMPAC) in order to affect the outcome of the elections for the Texas House that year. Better yet, Judge Waldrop actually worked with a TLR consultant who has been a grand jury witness in the cases involving DeLay, Ellis and Colyandro.

Normally this strong appearance of bias by a judge would be enough to raise doubts in a case, but not for DeLay.  Having strong connections to only one judge deciding his political future would be a disappointment for someone who has set the bar for corruption and unethical conduct so high.

A second judge who sits on one of the panels hearing the appeals, Justice David Puryear, gave $250 to a Republican candidate in the 1996 election.  This seems harmless enough, except that the Republican candidate Puryear gave money to, Shane Phelps, had been hand-picked by the GOP to run against none other than prosecutor Ronnie Earle – the same Ronnie Earle who will argue the case against DeLay in front of Puryear’s panel. 

And just to complete the web of eyebrow-raising political connections, both Puryear and Waldrop – as well as Justice Bob Pemberton, a third judge serving on one of the two panels – were all appointed by Gov. Perry – the same issue that forced Judge Schraub to remove himself from the case several months ago!

So it would seem that DeLay and his allies were busy gaming the Texas judicial system at the same time the former majority leader was perfecting the strong-armed, influence-peddling, behind-closed-doors methods he used to run the U.S. House of Representatives. He has lost his position of power in the latter, or course, but it remains to be seen if his influence in the former will yet save him from a possible conviction in Texas.

Stay tuned to the Clean Up Washington blog for new developments in the ever-shifting legal case of our first and finest inductee into the Ethics Hall of Shame, Rep. Tom DeLay.

“Lobbying reform, of all things, should not be twisted into a vehicle exploited by one party to gain electoral advantage.” Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) – March 7, 2006

“Americans finish what they start, and they expect the Senate to do the same.” Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn), referring to lobbying reform legislation – March 9, 2006

"We feel very strongly about the need to bring about bold, strong reforms." Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.), Chair of the House Rules Committee and chief architect of the House reform legislation. {DATE?]

Despite high-flown rhetoric about their commitment to lobbying and ethics reform, it looks like leaders in Congress are more about talk than action. 

House Republicans on Wednesday unveiled their much-trumpeted proposal for lobbying reform. The “bold, strong” package included disclosure of lobbyist gifts and earmarks along with a temporary ban on privately financed travel.  What it did not include was limits on lobbyist contributions or fundraising, a ban on gifts, or an independent Office of Public Integrity.  Forgive me if I hold my applause. 

Amazingly, even this paltry proposal ran into immediate opposition from other House Republicans.   Reps. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Dan Lundren (R-Calif.) announced they would introduce legislation that only required disclosure of privately financed trips, eliminating even the temporary ban.

As the Senate, for its part, moved toward a lobbying reform vote last week, Sen. Charles Schumer (R-N.Y.) offered an unrelated amendment to scuttle the Dubai port deal, throwing a fragile bipartisan consensus on the lobbying bill into disarray. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) expressed great disappointment at the non-germane amendment, but wasn’t upset enough to bring the bill up for reconsideration later in the day. This put lobbying reform in the Senate on indefinite hold with no future vote planned.

All the big talk about lobbying reform is just that—talk.   And so far, Congress’s addiction to cash and special-interest perks is speaking louder than words.

I would like offer my thanks to the activists who took part in yesterday’s action alert calling on the House to reject a measure that would have allowed unlimited soft money expenditures for ads on the Internet.

Thanks in part to your help, the legislative proposal – H.R. 1606 – was removed from consideration.

H.R. 1606 was just the latest of a string of efforts by opponents of campaign finance reform in Congress to roll-back federal campaign finance law and allow more corporate money to flow into campaigns. This bill, which was sponsored by Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), quickly gained the support of the leading congressional opponents of limits on money in politics.

To be sure, political communications on the Internet, and blogging in specific, has now emerged as the most fundamental, useful and affordable means for political dialogue. It requires the utmost protection of free speech rights.  But protecting the free speech rights of bloggers need not come at the price of opening the flood gates of special interests paying for candidate campaign ads.

The Center for Democracy and Technology developed a legislative proposal --  H.R. 4900, sponsored by Reps. Charles Bass (R-N.H.) and  Tom Allen (D-Maine) -- that bridged the concerns of many in the Internet community and the campaign finance reform community.

H.R. 4900 could have passed Congress, too. But protecting the Internet and preserving the integrity of campaign finance law were not the objectives of the key congressional sponsors of H.R. 1606. They primarily wanted to blow a hole in the soft money ban. As a result, Hensarling sought a rule of order that would prohibit any amendments or substitutes to H.R. 1606 during a floor vote -- in essence, to forbid consideration of the good H.R. 4900 as a substitute measure for the bad H.R. 1606.

The pressure we all put on Congress forced the Rules Committee to back down and not offer the restriction against amendments or substitutes. Faced with the reality that Congress could well end up approving good Internet legislation, rather than harming federal campaign finance law, congressional leaders withdrew H.R. 1606 from the floor and have also not scheduled H.R. 4900 for consideration

The key congressional sponsors of H.R. 1606 never really wanted to protect the Internet; they just wanted more money to pour into campaigns. If they cannot have the latter, they will remove the former from consideration.

Public Citizen will now join with others to promote the concepts of H.R. 4900 as a regulation before the Federal Election Commission, beginning next week.

Later this afternoon, Congress will be voting on a measure that could blow a huge loophole in campaign finance law. There are two bills -- one good, one bad.

The bad bill is H.R. 1606, which allows unlimited "soft money"-- money from corporations, unions or wealthy individuals -- to be poured into internet ads for political candidates.

The good bill is H.R. 4900. This bill will protect the free speech rights of bloggers while preserving the ban on soft money for campaign ads on the Internet. H.R. 4900,  sponsored by Reps. Tom Allen (D-Maine) and Charles Bass (R-N.H.), has the backing of the Institute for Politics, Democracy and the Internet as well as former Dean Campaign online manager, Nicco Mele.

Follow this link to email your Representative today! Check back on the blog tomorrow for an update on this important vote.

To learn more about this legislative attack on campaign finance law, and the legislative solution in H.R. 4900, click here.

Signatures restaurant, the Washington, D.C., fine-dining establishment formerly owned and operated by admitted-felon Jack Abramoff, is currently seeking suggestions on its Web site for a new name. That’s not surprising, given the fact that Signatures is now inextricably linked to Abramoff, whose reputation has tainted everything the former lobbyist touched. According to the Signatures Web site, the Wall Street Journal once accorded the restaurant as being “DC's Meeting Spot for Movers and Shakers.” 

We here at Clean Up Washington would like to offer a few ideas of our own. Below are some staff suggestions:

“The Trough” Belly up where Ney & company did

“Quid Pro Quo”

“Tommy's” Where fundraising is made easy

Have any of your own?

Two items in this morning’s Roll Call worthy of mention.

Item #1: File Under “Abramoff”

The Department of Justice requested the personal financial records of at least nine members of Congress and at least seven former congressional aides last year, Roll Call [subscription req.] reports.

The newspaper notes that many of the requests appear to be related to the Fed’s widening investigation into the Abramoff scandal. The list includes the usual suspects – Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas), Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.), Reps. Bob Ney (R.-Ohio) and John Doolittle (R-Calif.) – all of whom made our “Ethics Hall of Shame,” as well some surprises: Reps. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.), Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), John Sweeney (R-N.Y.) and Del. Eni Faleomavaega (D-American Samoa).

It’s not clear yet why these lawmakers, who have never before been publicly linked to the ongoing Abramoff investigation, were among those whose records were pulled. We’re just relieved that someone is looking into this, and that the investigation is progressing.

Item #2: Lobbying Goes Underground

Gone are the days when members of Congress could treat fifty of their closest friends to a skybox reception at the MCI center. That’s because these lavish, champagne toasts alongside professional sports games are now too risky and too ripe for the picking by enterprising journalists. Rather than hold public fundraising events, some lobbyists are opting for the privacy afforded by their own dining rooms, Roll Call [subscription req.] reports.

“A lot of lobbyists have talked about doing more events out of your house,” a Democratic lobbyist said. “We’re all looking around the corner and thinking about how are you going to preserve the relationships you have and also grow them so you have the ability to talk more extensively with staff. I’ve heard people talk about maybe [having people] host different dinners in their house.”

I guess that means Jack Abramoff’s old Signatures restaurant won’t be hosting many fundraisers this year. The former fine-dining establishment was once a highly regarded fundraising spot by Washington’s political elite. Even House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) used the restaurant; in June 2003, Hastert held a fundraiser at the restaurant that raised $21,500 for his Keep Our Majority political action committee from Abramoff’s firm and tribal clients. Now that public fundraising events are too…er…public, don’t be surprised if Washington-area caterers see an up-tick in business.

In today’s Roundup: Jack Abramoff names names, Rick Santorum secretly resumes the weekly lobbyist meetings he pledged to end a month ago, the Senate moves to ban lawmakers from accepting meals from lobbyists, two Republicans facing tough reelection fights move to become reform champions, and two Maryland U.S. House candidates are in murky campaign finance territory.

Read More...

The Senate debate on lobbying reform seemed to be moving forward yesterday in an unusually bipartisan way -- until it screeched to a halt after running into the Dubai port security issue. There will be a vote at 2pm today that may move the debate back to the lobby reform bill.

In the midst of the lobbying reform debate yesterday, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) offered an unrelated amendment on the port issue. Because the port issue isn’t relevant to the reform measure, and Schumer refused to withdraw his amendment, debate on the reform bill and numerous pending amendments ended for the day.

By voice vote yesterday, the Senate expanded the underlying bill’s ban on gifts from lobbyists to Members and staff to include a ban on meals as well. The amendment co-sponsors were Sens. Christopher Dodd, Rick Santorum, John McCain, Joseph Lieberman and Barack Obama.

Yesterday’s only recorded vote was on an amendment by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, that would have strengthened the underlying bill in many ways, including banning all gifts and meals from lobbyists and restricting the role of lobbyists in organizing, paying and participating in official trips for Members of Congress. The Reid amendment – which lost by a vote of 44 to 55 – reflected the provisions in a Democratic bill co-sponsored by 40 Senators earlier this year.

Today, more than 35 amendments are pending, including provisions to create an independent ethics enforcement office (the Office of Public Integrity – which was in the original Homeland Security bill proposed by Sens. Susan Collins and Joe Lieberman but was taken out by the Committee), to ban former members and high-level staff from not only directly lobbying members but also from directing others on lobby strategy and to restrict campaign fundraising activities of lobbyists.

Bad news on the campaign finance front: The House Administration Committee this morning approved H.R. 1606, which allows unlimited "soft money" -- money from corporations, unions and wealthy individuals -- to buy campaign advertising on the Internet. This is a potentially devastating loophole in the current soft money ban, as campaigns come to rely more and more on Internet advertising.

The move came on a voice vote. Chairman Ehlers, Ranking Member Rep. Juanita Millender-McDonald, Rep. John Mica, Rep. Candice Miller, Rep. Robert Brady and Rep. Zoe Lofgren spoke, although they talked in general terms about protecting bloggers, rather than discussing the impact the bill could have on campaign finance law. Ehlers and Mica said they could imagine future corruptionarising if the bill is enacted, but said Congress could deal with those problems when they come up. 

Rep. Lofgren commended a compromise proposal from the Center for Democracy and Technology that would protect both the integrity of the soft money ban and free speech rights of bloggers. Still, she said, the time is now to act on H.R. 1606. The CDT proposal has been introduced in the House as H.R. 4900 by Reps. Thomas Allen (D-Maine) and Charles Bass (R-N.H.).

Millender-McDonald did not reveal her position on H.R. 1606, and spoke to both protecting the Internet and the value of stopping soft money corruption. But no one attempted to substitute the good H.R. 4900 for the bad H.R. 1606.

H.R. 1606 will be on the House floor next week. The campaign finance reform community will be gearing up to kill the bill.

This is too good to pass up:  Talking Points Memo's Muckraker reports that the April issue of Vanity Fair (due on stands next week) includes a nine-page spread on former lobbyist and admitted felon Jack Abramoff, the man at the epicenter of the scandals now rocking Washington. The magazine scored a rare interview with Abramoff, who is reported to have discussed his ties to GOP all-stars President Bush, Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, and other heavy lifters who have denied having a personal relationship with Abramoff.

TPM  and Raw Story reports that during the interview Abramoff recalls Bush once joking with him, "What are you benching, buff guy?"

Of course, Abramoff's account doesn't even come close to indicating Bush's relationship with the former lobbyist. The President probably addresses muscle tone with everyone he meets. And really, who doesn't?

Although President Bush has denied knowing Abramoff, the White House refuses to release photos of the two men together, as well as a list of meetings between Abramoff and administration aides. A Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 76 percent of Americans say Bush should disclose these meetings; only 18 percent disagreed.

Help us put an end to this nonsense. You can take action and demand that Bush release photos taken of himself with Abramoff.

In today’s Roundup: Ethics reform legislation inches closer to bloody floor votes in the Senate, John McCain is MIA on reform, Conrad Burns keeps taking hits over his relations with lobbyists, Katherine Harris’ senate campaign may be finished off by ethics problems, Bob Ney now claims not to know Jack (Abramoff), and DeLay celebrates his primary victory with Washington lobbyists.

Read More...

Indicted Rep. Tom DeLay’s (R-Tex.) contentious primary election battle with three Republicans comes to a boil today, as voters in southeast Texas head to the polls. 

With his political life on the line, how is DeLay spending election day, you ask?   Going door to door in his home district?  Holding a rally to encourage his supporters to turn out at the polls? Making one last round of television interviews before voters cast their ballots?

Of course not. Incredibly but not surprisingly, Delay is doing what has kept him in office for 22 years and vaulted him to the pinnacle of power in the Republican party: attending a fundraiser with wealthy lobbyists.

According to the Associated Press, DeLay is in Washington to attend a fundraiser tonight with two of the capital’s newest high-powered lobbyists.  Former Reps. Bill Paxon and Susan Molinari, prime examples of Washington’s revolving door problem, are hosting the fundraiser, which also features former Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson.  A seat at the election night event starts at a cool $500 for individuals and $1,000 for political action committees.

The absurdity wasn’t lost on DeLay’s leading opponent, attorney Tom Campbell.  "I think it's amazingly ironic and callous he would be spending election night with a group of lobbyists," Campbell said. "I don't think he understands how unhappy constituents are with what appears to be a trade of principle for power."

It is possible, though, that DeLay’s constituents will remind him how unhappy they are: This is DeLay’s first contested election in many years… and it’s still only the primary.

In today’s Roundup: Jack Abramoff will be “naming names” before his sentencing this month, (extremely modest) ethics reform legislation is moving through Congress, several politicians deny having done anything wrong and/or refuse to talk about allegations they’ve done anything wrong, the new House majority leader’s wife is lobbying on controversial legislation, Tom DeLay keeps taking hits and another round of the easiest game ever played: “What happened to government official X after he left public service.” Hint: It starts with an “L” and ends with “obbying.”

Read More...

When Congress finally stepped up to the plate in 2002 and passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), it was a huge victory for those who want to curb the influence of special interest money in federal elections. Most importantly, the act prohibited federal candidates and the parties from raising and spending "soft money" -- money raised directly from corporations, unions and wealthy individuals, sometimes in six-figure or greater sums. However, the law never clearly addressed use of soft money in campaign advertising on the Internet.

That could change soon.

For more than a year, civic groups, candidates, parties and bloggers alike have been struggling to develop a new policy for Internet campaign advertising that both maintains the soft money ban and protects political speech by bloggers and others.

Now, the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) has done precisely that. CDT has issued a draft proposal that finds a bridge between the campaign finance reform the blogging communities. The proposal is being sponsored as legislation by Rep. Tom Allen (D-Maine). The bill will be up for debate as early as the week of March 5.

You can read the proposal and supporting materials here.

In today's Roundup: Randy "Duke" Cunningham is sentenced for bribery, a candidate for his seat has Abramoff ties, reform stumbles through the Senate, lawmakers raise money from lobbyists while publicly denouncing them, Katherine Harris has a lobbyist problem of her own and more.

Read More...

In a lopsided 12-to-1 vote yesterday, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee approved a lackluster lobbying reform package and sent it to the floor for final action next week. So whether we achieve truly meaningful lobbying reform now all rides on a looming floor amendment battle next week.

The committee hearing was extremely disheartening. Most members argued there simply is no Congressional ethics problem; that the public's perception of corruption on Capitol Hill is a myth. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) had to the gall to mock the public's concerns by offering several ridiculous amendments, including one that would prohibit government buildings from being named after living senators. Coburn said he was planning to introduce the amendments in "jest," as a way of snickering at our calls for reform.

While the committee did approve a modest package of enhanced disclosure requirements for lobbyists, it struck out the most important provision of the proposal: establishing an independent ethics agency to monitor compliance and enforce the law. Currently, ethics and lobbying laws are enforced by members themselves -- a system designed to fail.   Although Capitol Hill is swept up in the worst corruption scandals in three decades, the congressional ethics committees have done nothing to clean up the mess. Yet Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio), chair of the Senate ethics committee, summed up the attitude of the Homeland Security committee when he pronounced that his committee is "already doing those things."

Hopefully, the Senate as a whole is not as out-of-touch as the Homeland Security committee. Amendments are due to be introduced by Sens. John McCain, Barack Obama, Russell Feingold, Dianne Feinstein and others, variously calling for an independent enforcement agency, travel restrictions, a gift ban, and restrictions on fundraising by lobbyists. The floor battle is expected to begin in earnest on Tuesday, March 8th.

Maybe with the light of closer public scrutiny that comes with floor debate, the Senate will be shamed into doing what is right, and will pass genuine lobbying reform. It's also important that everyone call their Senators and make it known that we demand real reform. For information on how to call, go here.

In today's Corruption and Reform News Roundup, a Senate committee zapped proposals to establish an oversight office and to institute tougher revolving door standards. Former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham readies for sentencing and the New York Times reports on foxes guarding the henhouse in the Interior Department.

Read More...

The Empress of Elections herself, Rep. Katherine Harris (R-Fla.), just can’t seem to stay away from controversy. 

In 2000, it was her role as secretary of state overseeing Florida’s presidential balloting that made her controversial. Today, it’s ties to a Congressional bribery scandal. Last Friday, Mitchell Wade, former president of the defense contractor MZM, pled guilty to bribing Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-Calif.).  In addition, Wade admitted to making illegal campaign contributions to Harris and Rep. Virgil Goode (R-Va.).

Harris received $50,000 from MZM employees and the company’s political action committee during 2004, making them the largest source of contributions to her re-election campaign.  Of this $50,000, $32,000 was illegally funneled through employees by reimbursing them for individual donations.  Only two weeks ago did Harris return the illegal contributions, months after the allegations came to light.

Like other lobbyists involved in the recent wave of ethics scandals, Mitchell Wade and MZM didn’t donate to Harris out of the kindness of their hearts.  Following MZM’s largesse in 2004, Wade took Harris to dinner in early 2005 to discuss holding a fundraiser for her and to ask for federal funding to build a Navy counterintelligence facility in Florida.  Soon after, in April, 2005, Harris submitted a $10 million defense appropriations request for the project - an "earmarked" request.  While the proposal was ultimately rejected, questions continue to swirl around the former Ruler of Recounts.  Roll Call is reporting today that Harris’ scheduler, Mona Tate Yost, job left her position and took a job with Wade at MZM in May 2005. 

Nor is this the first time Harris has faced questions about her fundraising.  During her 1994 campaign for state senate, Harris received $30,000 from a Florida company that was later investigated for violating campaign finance laws.  According to a 1997 interview, Harris expressed regret at being unaware of the questionable contributions and added that, “when it comes from one corporation, I think there's always a problem of perception."

As Talking Points Memo points out, this problem of "perception" can only increase when Rep. Harris lies about the contributions to the media, as some columnists in Florida are accusing her of doing. And just when you think the whole affair couldn't get any more rank, consider this: in the middle of the media's Abramoff/lobbyist reform feeding frenzy, Harris promised to disclose all of her earmark requests. Except, apparently, this earmark request. Her spokesman says it's "privileged information" and they're not handing it over.

Why are we not surprised?

Come back to the Clean Up Washington blog for updates on this juicy scandal, and all the latest in corruption and reform news....

In today's Corruption and Reform News Roundup: Sens. Lieberman and Collins cut a deal on an independent ethics enforcement body, more of the Republican leadership signs on to the idea of a moratorium on privately-paid junkets, Democrats move to televise the House Rules Committee, more editorials for reform, and scandal news involving Reps. Weldon, Harris, Cunningham, DeLay, and Hastert.

Read More...

Congress’ rush to lobbying reform, which began in earnest after Jack Abramoff’s Jan. 3 guilty plea,is taking shape this week and next in the U.S. Senate. With more than a dozen proposals introduced in Congress, Senate leaders have decided to consolidate the proposals into legislation to be considered on the Senate floor as early as the second week of March. The House, meanwhile, has started    hearings on lobbying reform, but is waiting to see what the Senate does before proceeding further.

On Feb. 28, the Senate Rules and Administration Committee completed mark-up of a package it sent to the floor on a 17-0 vote. The most significant reform addressed earmarks –pet projects often tacked onto legislation in the 11th hour—in appropriations and other bills.

The legislation would also ban all gifts from lobbyists other than meals. It would ban privileges awarded to former members-turned-lobbyists, such as access to the Senate floor. The bill would prohibit members from punishing or rewarding a lobbying firm for hiring based on partisan considerations (which Republicans did with their “K Street Project”), and it would prohibit immediate family of a member from lobbying that member.

The bill proposes an unusual disclosure provision: members would be required to post on their own Web sites any gifts or travel received from lobbyists or other private interests. It would also require itemized reporting by members and congressional staff of any privately funded travel.

On March 2, the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee proceeds with its own mark-up, which will focus on a bill submitted by Chairman Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Ranking Member Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.).

The Collins-Lieberman bill    is largely a disclosure-only bill, with few restrictions on the conduct of lobbying. The most significant part is creation of an independent ethics enforcement agency, with the ability to start investigations and make recommendations for final action to the House and Senate ethics committees.

Lead Story:

As the Senate Rules Committee continues its mark up of ethics reform legislation, Chairman Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) is “determined not to go too far,” reports the LA Times. Also today, the paper has a story on federal prosecutors’ pursuit of a 10 year sentence for former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-Calif.). Cunningham took bribes from a defense contractor who pleaded guilty on Friday to making illegal campaign contributions to Reps. Virgil Goode (R-Va.) and Katherine Harris (R-Fla.). It’s interesting context for a senator saying that too much reform is one of his main concerns.

Reform Roundup:

The Hill has more on the ethics reform activity in the Senate Rules Committee yesterday.

Beyond Anna Nicole Smith: Vermont state limits on campaign spending are in front of the Supreme Court. The Washington Post and New York Times have more.

Corruption Roundup:

Talking Points Memo delves into the details of the Texans for Public Justice IRS probe we blogged about yesterday and finds that all is not right. Did the IRS violate policy in initiating the probe? They’re not saying.

The New York Times reports that Democrats are trying to tie Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.) to the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandals. It’s not that hard—start at his place of dishonor in our Ethics Hall of Shame.

Does Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) have his own ethics problems? The Hill reports that two of his former staffers have filed complaints with the House ethics committee saying Conyers directed his congressional staffers to work on political campaigns and run personal errands.

The Hill also reports that Rep. Richard Pombo (R-Calif.), a member of our Ethics Hall of Shame, may have kept Bush administration officials on his staff to write anti-environmental legislation twice as long as is allowed under ethics rules.

Judicial Watch has sued the Secret Service for visitor logs that will show how often Abramoff dropped in at White House, reports Think Progress.

The Boston Globe digs deeper into the Abramoff scandal, this time looking at a Russian-Israeli oil drilling scheme.