Pork Subterfuge

Earmark Subterfuge

By Robert D. Novak
Monday, March 19, 2007; A15

As part of "Sunshine Week," meant to promote transparent government, the Office of Management and Budget was supposed to release a comprehensive database last Monday revealing the number and cost of earmarks since 2005. It did not. Word on Capitol Hill was that OMB was muzzled by the White House for fear of offending powerful congressional appropriators.

Meanwhile, the Senate Appropriations subcommittee staffs under Democratic control are privately asking individual senators for earmark requests, without much transparency. That would seem to make a sham of the pledge by Appropriations Chairman Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va) to "place a moratorium on all earmarks until a reformed process is put in place."

Thanks partly to the outcome of the 2006 elections, members of Congress can no longer blithely earmark funds for pet projects. But in the dark recesses of Capitol Hill, lawmakers from both parties are continuing the pernicious practice as best they can. The question is whether they will be curbed by the Republican administration or the Democratic Congress, or by both.

OMB Director Rob Portman, a former member of the House Republican leadership, is a firm opponent of earmarks. On Jan. 25, he signed a memorandum for heads of departments on the collection of information about earmarks. It set forth a rigid timeline to culminate in the posting on March 12 of all these data on the "public Internet." What would be revealed would be a rare exposure of the murky world of congressional pork.

But just as OMB was preparing to put out the information, it sent word to Capitol Hill that -- over the agency's protests -- the data were being kept under wraps by the White House to appease the appropriators. With Congress in the midst of the budget process, President Bush's team did not want to stir up the Hill.

All that was released last Monday was a compilation of 2005 earmarks, with few details. Portman publicly called it "an important first step towards providing greater transparency." In private, however, he said last week: "My hands are tied." Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), scourge of earmarks, told me: "I think the American people should be very disappointed."

An even stronger example of the resiliency of the congressional pork purveyors is the appropriators' noncompliance with the ethics bill that passed the Senate 96 to 2 but awaits final enactment. Coburn delivered a letter to Chairman Byrd, saying: "The committee's failure to make earmark information public would make a mockery of recently passed earmark reforms and would suggest to taxpayers that the Senate wants to continue to earmark funds in secret."

Skimpy though the information is, however, OMB's posting still generated calls of protest to the agency from members of Congress. It is business as usual in the earmarks business orchestrated by the Senate Appropriations subcommittees.

On Feb. 21, the interior, environment and related agencies subcommittee sent senators a detailed procedure for earmarks with a March 30 deadline. On Feb. 28, the chairman and ranking Republican on the energy and water development subcommittee asked for earmark requests that "identify" their "beneficial role." On March 7, the agriculture subcommittee sent senators a request form.

Such request forms generally omit the requirements of the new ethics bill: for example, disclosure of any personal financial interest in an earmark by a member of Congress. The labor, health and human services and education subcommittee's form asks only that the request be made by April 13. Coburn's letter to Byrd: "Your experience and institutional knowledge are invaluable, and I look forward to working with you to ensure that all taxpayers dollars are expended in a fully transparent and responsible manner."

Whether or not Coburn really expects help from Capitol Hill's king of pork, he surely would like to see George W. Bush shrug off the threat of the appropriators and get involved in the war against earmarks. A senior White House aide has advised that the full story, expected last week, will be told by the end of the month. It will be a good test of presidential intent.

Jefferson Saga Continues to Vex Democrats

By Susan Ferrechio 31 minutes ago

After campaigning on pledges to clean up Washington, Democrats are finding that dealing with one of their own members is proving nearly as difficult as weaning lawmakers from free meals and jet travel.

Since the news broke in 2005 that FBI agents found $90,000 in cash in the freezer of Rep. William J. Jefferson’s home, House Democrats have not known quite what to do about the Louisiana lawmaker.

The latest embarrassment arose Wednesday, when Democrats delayed action on placing Jefferson on the Homeland Security Committee after Republicans said they would demand a recorded vote.

The Democratic Caucus had signed off a day earlier on a resolution backed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., that would give Jefferson a seat on the panel. Typically, a committee assignment would be a routine action approved on the floor by unanimous consent.

But faced with the prospect that enough Democrats might join Republicans to defeat the move, Democratic leaders backtracked.

Minority Whip Roy Blunt (news, bio, voting record), R-Mo., cited the ongoing federal bribery probe directed at Jefferson as the reason for GOP opposition. But he used the issue to accuse the Democrats — particularly Pelosi — of abandoning the strong anti-corruption stance they took in last year’s elections, which was credited with helping them win the majority.

Jefferson’s appointment to the committee, Blunt told reporters, “is such a contradiction to what the Speaker said and stood for during the campaign.”

“I won’t support that on the floor, and I don’t think most of my colleagues will, either,” he said.

Corruption Probe Drags On

Jefferson is the subject of a nearly two-year-long federal investigation, focusing on whether he accepted bribes in exchange for helping put together telecommunications deals in Africa.

As part of the probe, investigators allege that on July 30, 2005, they videotaped Jefferson receiving a briefcase containing $100,000 from an FBI informant. A few days later, the FBI executed search warrants to examine Jefferson’s homes and car, seizing a number of items, including the $90,000 in cash from a freezer in his Northeast Washington home.

He has yet to be charged with any wrongdoing, but eight months ago, during the height of the election season, Pelosi led an effort to revoke his seat on the House Ways and Means Committee because of the probe.

She succeeded despite considerable opposition from members of her own party who belong to the Congressional Black Caucus.

In recent weeks, Jefferson’s status among Democrats appeared to have changed somewhat, in part because of his outspokenness on issues relating to Hurricane Katrina recovery.

Earlier this week, Pelosi said Jefferson’s appointment to the Homeland Security panel would put him in a better position to help people in his New Orleans district. The committee oversees the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which was widely criticized for its handling of the Katrina disaster and is now undergoing a major reorganization.

Two Homeland Security subcommittees conducting a joint hearing Wednesday allowed Jefferson to sit on the dais and hear testimony from FEMA workers about efforts to realign the agency.

The move irked some Republicans on the panel. “It was just very surprising he wouldn’t wait to be confirmed by the House,” said one GOP aide.

Democratic leaders would not say Wednesday when they would attempt to raise Jefferson’s committee appointment on the House floor. But GOP leaders continued to hammer away at the issue, putting out statements citing “crumbling Democrat ethics standards.”

Minority Leader John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, called the move to appoint Jefferson “baffling and troubling,” citing the committee’s access to classified information. He said Republicans would vote against the appointment.

Some Democrats may follow suit, particularly freshmen who ran their campaigns based on anti-corruption platforms. Voting for Jefferson could be potentially embarrassing for them.

“I’d have to think about it,” said Tim Mahoney, a Florida Democrat who occupies the seat once held by former Rep. Mark Foley. Foley was forced to resign after making inappropriate overtures to underage male pages.

“From my perspective, it’s important we do more to amplify ethics,” Mahoney added.

Even Jefferson’s colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus are not guaranteed backers.

“I’m going to do what’s fair,” said Democrat Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland, who declined to comment on how he might vote.

Other caucus members were less concerned.

“I don’t think it will be that big of a problem,” said Albert R. Wynn, D-Md. “If the leader puts it forward, the caucus members should endorse it.”

Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, D-Md., dismissed Republican concerns, noting that they are in no position to question ethics. The activities of several Republican members, including House Appropriations Committee ranking member Jerry Lewis (news, bio, voting record) of California, are currently being examined by federal investigators. Hoyer said any challenge by Republicans to the appointment “will be interesting.”

Jefferson Maintains Innocence

While Jefferson remains in limbo in the House, his legal situation is also on hold.

His lawyers filed a 40-page brief Wednesday with the U.S. Court of Appeals as part of an ongoing effort to retrieve documents seized by the FBI during a raid on the lawmaker’s congressional office last year.

Jefferson, who maintains his innocence, says he has no intention of sitting on the Homeland Security panel as a non-voting member.

“I expect to serve on the committee. I’m not thinking about contingency plans,” he said.

Jefferson called the GOP opposition to his appointment “politics as usual.”

“Speaker Pelosi did the right thing by placing the congressional member who represents hurricane-ravaged New Orleans on this committee,” he said. “My district desperately needs a voice on this panel, which oversees FEMA and examines how to improve federal response to natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina.”

Railroad Firms Bringing Aboard Lawmakers' Lobbyist Relatives

By Elizabeth Williamson

Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 8, 2007; A01

The railroad industry is hiring relatives of Capitol Hill lawmakers and staff members as it faces tighter federal safety legislation, employing a tactic untouched by the Democrats' new ethics proposals: lobbying by congressional family members.

The new Democratic Congress is working on the first overhaul of railroad-safety laws in 13 years. Long attuned to Republican control, railroad companies are now working to keep their GOP allies but also hiring Democratic lobbyists.

Days after Jennifer Esposito became majority staff director of the House transportation panel's subcommittee on railroads, her father, Sante Esposito, and brother Michael Esposito signed up as railway lobbyists. Rep. Daniel Lipinski (D-Ill.) has just taken a seat on the subcommittee, and in the coming weeks, the railroad industry trade association said, his father and predecessor in Congress, William O. Lipinski (D-Ill.), will register as a railroad lobbyist, too.

The new lobbyists join Bud Shuster (R-Pa.), a former congressman and chairman of the transportation committee who lobbies for railroads and whose son, Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Pa.), also has just joined the railroads subcommittee.

The lobbyists said they would not directly advocate for clients through family members. The hirings are legal, experts on lobbying law said, but point to a topic left unaddressed in the new ethics proposals before Congress. While the Senate has voted to ban lobbying by some lawmakers' spouses, neither chamber has moved to limit lobbying by other family members.

"Like every other industry, we felt it was important to have representatives from both the Democratic and Republican side," said Peggy Nasir, spokeswoman for the Association of American Railroads, which hired Shuster, Lipinski, and Sante and Michael Esposito. "We are meeting all the standards we need to meet for lobbying."

The stakes are high for the railroads. Last week, Congress began debate on a reauthorization of the Federal Railroad Safety Program, which has not been updated since 1994. With government figures showing an increase in railroad accidents and fatalities over the past decade, watchdog agencies, accident victims and many Democratic lawmakers want improved track and crossing inspections, better accident investigations, and heavy fines for companies that break the rules.

It is against this backdrop that the railroads association turned to Sante Esposito.

The Esposito family has a long history with the House transportation committee. Sante Esposito served for nearly two decades as its Democratic chief counsel. Michael and Jennifer Esposito were committee interns and Jennifer joined the railroads subcommittee as staff director in 2004, when Democrats were in the minority.

Sante and Michael Esposito are partners in Federal Advocates Inc. in Sterling, Va., which advertises its transport policy influence on its Web site. Sante Esposito, it says, "enjoys long-standing working relationships with numerous decision-makers in the Congress and Executive Branch."

Sante Esposito said that he told the railroads association, "I can advise you on the best strategy for dealing with the new majority in Congress," and he added that "it was clear right from the beginning that I was not to lobby my daughter."

"I don't think relatives should lobby relatives, but I don't think relatives of members or staff should be precluded from lobbying the Congress."

Jennifer Esposito said that her family's work will not keep her from representing the interests of her boss and the transportation committee's chairman, Rep. James L. Oberstar (D-Minn.), who favors stronger safety laws. She said she considers the railroad companies her "adversaries."

When they were hired, she said, she consulted her supervisors and House ethics advisers who she said told her to create a "wall" to prevent them from lobbying her. Her father, she decided, "can't lobby me, he can't meet with me, I can't discuss any issues with him."

Lobbying experts said such precautions are not required by law. "The rules do not prohibit hiring a family member such as this to lobby on an issue," Kenneth Gross, an ethics lawyer at the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, said about the Espositos. "It's up to the judgment of the individual."

Nevertheless, public-interest groups say such family relationships beg for oversight.

Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said: "Congressional staffers should be recused from dealing with matters their immediate family members lobby on."

Such recusals rarely happen, watchdog groups say.

Before he left Congress, William Lipinski championed the Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency program (CREATE), a railroad improvement project for the nation's biggest freight-rail hub. The $1.5 billion project is funded by taxpayers, and $212 million of it by the nation's six big railroads. When CREATE began in mid-2003, Lipinski complained that the railroads were not picking up more of the tab.

"These improvements are worth more to the railroads than $212 million," he said at the time.

In 2004, Lipinski left Congress and joined the Association of American Railroads as a CREATE consultant. Daniel Lipinski won his father's seat, and last year his office issued a news release announcing a new funding agreement for CREATE, but the railroads' share of its cost has stayed the same.

After the November midterm elections, Daniel Lipinski was named to the transportation committee and its railroads subcommittee. And this month, William Lipinski will register as a lobbyist for the railroads but said he will not "lobby my son in regards to any of my clients."

Asked how father and son avoid the appearance of impropriety while working on the same railway project, Daniel Lipinski said: "CREATE is a very important project, not just for the Chicago area. . . . The more people working on this, the better."

In a 2001 special election, Bill Shuster won the congressional seat and the transportation committee slot vacated by his father that year. Shuster is now the new ranking Republican on the railroads subcommittee.

His father "doesn't need to lobby a junior member of Congress," Shuster said, adding that "he's got an extremely close relationship with the chairman" of the transportation panel, Oberstar.

He added: "How are you going to stop somebody who spent 28 years of their life being an expert on something from going to the private sector? It's discrimination."

Corrine Brown (D-Fla.), chairman of the railroads subcommittee, hopes to ready a rail-safety bill before June. Since 1994, train use has risen 17 percent, according to government figures, while accidents have increased by one-third. There are 421 federal inspectors checking tracks and equipment nationwide, leaving safety monitoring largely to the industry.

Nasir of the Association of American Railroads said that train accident rates have decreased sharply since 1980. She said that when complete figures are compiled, they probably will show last year to be the industry's safest.

The regulations, association chief Edward R. Hamberger told the subcommittee last week, cost railroads money and hamper innovation.

The industry prefers "performance standards," that "would rely on the superior knowledge of railroads," he testified. Except in special cases, federal regulators "would no longer specify how a railroad would achieve its safety goals," as they do now.

Jennifer Esposito disagrees with that proposal. "Train accidents are going up, and it's something that we feel needs to be addressed," she said. "I don't think that just because they hired my father, somehow there will be some conversation that will change my boss's mind."

Her father and brother, she said, "are working for my adversaries."

Staff writer Jeffrey H. Birnbaum and staff researcher Madonna Lebling contributed to this report.

Proposed ban on lawmakers’ lobbyist-funded trips has exceptions

By DANIEL FRIEDMAN
February 01, 2007

The House and Senate have each approved measures to ban lobbyist-funded travel for lawmakers and their staffs. But the new restrictions would still allow privately financed travel in some scenarios.

The travel rules, along with bans on lobbyist-bought gifts, new disclosure requirements for earmarks and other measures, form sweeping ethics reform packages intended to reduce lobbyists’ ability to use money to influence Congress.

But some organizations hoping to sway lawmakers still would be able pay for congressional travel under the two measures.

Nonprofit organizations that do not pay lobbyists yet still advocate for policies would not be banned from funding travel for lawmakers and their staffs.

And both the House and Senate measures would still permit travel funded by nonprofits affiliated with lobbying organizations. That means that groups such as the American Israel Education Foundation, an offshoot of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), can continue paying for lawmakers’ trips to Israel. AIPAC, along with other groups, has long paid for legislators to travel to Israel on educational trips intended to increase support for Israeli policies.
Universities may not be affected

The House-approved measure also would exempt private universities, some of which employ lobbyists, from restrictions on paying for congressional travel. And groups that pay lobbyists would still be able to fund one-day trips for House members to visit a site, give a speech, attend a forum or sit on a panel.

Jim Clarke, senior vice president for public policy at the American Society of Association Executives (ASAE), which represents trade societies and philanthropic organizations, said the group is pleased that its members can still support some educational trips. ASAE has argued that a ban on outside-funded travel would outlaw legitimate fact-finding trips.

Many aspects of the travel restrictions are not final. Under both reform packages, the ethics committees in each chamber must pre-approve travel funded by outside groups. Those committees are still working out details of that process.

The House Ethics Committee has not finished guidelines governing issues such as how close the connection between the trip and official duties must be and what constitutes an unreasonable expenditure on a privately funded trip.

House rules take effect March 1

The House package, because it is a rules change rather than legislation, will automatically take effect March 1. The Senate bill, by contrast, needs House passage of companion legislation and the president’s signature to become law. House Democrats are expected to introduce a bill containing new ethics rules in coming months.

The House and Senate could either reconcile their ethics reforms or operate under distinct rules.
E-mail: dfriedman@federaltimes.com

The Sad Truth About Lobbying and Ethics Reform

Thursday, January 18, 2007

Democrats are eager to show they’re serious about reforming the way Congress does business. So they’re pushing a new ethics and lobbying bill that will ban gifts, meals, and free trips from lobbyists and their clients, and require that the legislative sponsors of all earmarks for pet projects be identified in the legislation.

But calling these reforms is like saying you’ve cleaned the house when all you’ve done is taken out the garbage.

The real scandal in Washington is the everyday bribery that remains legal. I’m talking about campaign contributions given for legislative favors – a particular provision in this or that bill, an amendment here, an earmarked appropriation there. Lobbyists orchestrate this contemptible process. And members of congress keep it going because the money buys television time for their re-election campaigns, and television advertising keeps them in power.

The system is out of control. It cost the average candidate three times more to run for Congress in 2006 than it did in 1990, adjusted for inflation. Members now devote most of their time to fund raising instead of representing their constituents.

The number of lobbyists in Washington has doubled over the past ten years. Now, there are 60 of them for every single member of Congress. They spent $2.4 billion last year. And at the rate they continue to spend, you can bet they’re getting every penny’s worth for their clients.

Banning gifts, meals, and junkets won’t make any difference to this everyday exchange of campaign money for legislative favors. And disclosing who sponsors what earmarks won’t reduce the amount of taxpayer dollars going to special interests because the incentives to make the deal are still there, on both sides. Under these circumstances, a disclosure is like an advertisement – look what I’ve done for my contributors! Ten years ago, there were 3,000 earmarks. Last year, there were 14,000, costing taxpayers over $47 billion, according to the Congressional Research Service.

The problem extends beyond earmarks. Consider what happened to the Democrat’s Medicare drug bill. It was supposed to force Medicare to bargain for lower drug prices, but it doesn’t allow Medicare to remove from its approved list drugs not offered at a discount. Chalk up another one for Big Pharma and its campaign slush fund.

The only way to stop the system of legalized bribery is to cut it off at its roots. Require television and radio networks that use the public airwaves to offer candidates free time. Give public financing to candidates who agree to strict limits on fund-raising. And ban earmarks altogether. There’s no good reason why taxpayer money should be appropriated for any special interest.

The Democrats took over Congress a few weeks ago on a tidal wave of public outrage about the way business is done in Washington. But their ethics and lobbying bill won’t change the way business is done in Washington. It will only change the way it appears to be done.

Robert Reich is the nation's 22nd Secretary of Labor and a professor at the University of California at Berkeley.

Why the Dem's First Hundred Hours is Much Ado about Little

Thursday, January 18, 2007

Why do the Democrats fulminate against Bush’s surge but refuse to cut off funds for it? Why do they push a lobbying and ethics reform bill that doesn’t deal with the core scandal of campaign contributions for legislative favors? Why do they design a new Medicare drug benefit bill that will force Medicare to negotiate drug prices but not authorize Medicare to remove a non-discounted drug from coverage? Why do they push a minimum-wage increase that doesn’t index the minimum wage to inflation, and why are Senate Democrats so intent on tying the bill to tax favors for small business?

Because the voters who put the Dems in charge of Congress wanted change, but the Dems who took control of Congress know they (1) don’t have the votes to override a presidential veto, (2) still have lots of "blue-dog" conservative Democrats among them who don’t want change, (3) can’t do anything very dramatic without stirring up the business community – which has more lobbyists and more clout than ever before, and (4) want to show business they’re "responsible" in order to get corporate campaign contributions for 2008 and remain in power, and possibly even elect a Democrat president.

In other words, they want to create the impression of big change but not make big changes.They have to keep the Democratic base happy and fired up for 2008 and they have to keep a big distance from the failing administration of George W. Bush, but they can’t do anything that’s going to get too many corporate interests too riled up. It’s a tricky balance.

Different Set of Rules for Neolibs, Israel Firsters

Wednesday January 10th 2007, 8:15 am

Once again, we are served up an object lesson on who runs things in Washington.

“A major loophole in the Democrats’ recently unveiled ethics package will allow non-profit arms of controversial lobbying organizations to fund travel excursions for members of Congress,” reports Raw Story.

And who benefits from this “ethics exemption”?

AIPAC, of course.

“All-expense-paid tours to Israel are among the most common overseas trips made by members of Congress and their aides,” writes the Jewish Daily Forward. “Watchdog groups, using data from congressional filings, have reported that Israel is the leading destination for privately sponsored congressional trips.”

I have referred to these “trips” as “walking tours” that produce stepfordized pro-Israelites, returning to America and Congress in prime shape to vote for whatever outrage the political establishment in Israel have in mind, from pushing for an attack against Iran to continued brutality against the Palestinians.

According to AIPAC’s Josh Block, these walking tours are “substantive, educational, and valuable,” that is to say they serve well the Israel First agenda, so a Mack truck sized loophole will be provided under the 501(c)(3) ruse, designed for “educational trips for private citizens and public officials.” According to Raw Story, “organizations with that designation do not conduct lobbying directly and therefore are allowed to fund travel for members.” How AIPAC, the largest and most pernicious “lobbying group” in Washington, falls under this designation remains a mystery.

Incidentally, the other organization exempt from the ethics bill is the Aspen Institute, a pet project of the Carnegie Corporation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and the Ford Foundation, a ruling elite cabal dedicated to “fostering enlightened leadership, the appreciation of timeless ideas and values, and open-minded dialogue on contemporary issues,” that is to say pushing the Neolib World Order agenda outside of ethical boundaries that apply to the rest of us, mere commoners.

Lest you think the Aspen neolibs are simply east coast banksters, consider they count as members “Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, former Vice President Al Gore, Clinton Secretary of State Madeline Albright, and former New York Times reporter Judith Miller,” a regular rogue’s gallery of war criminals, neocons, One World free traders, and quislings.

This “loophole” should serve as an example that our political system is a rigged game, a fixed horse race, no matter who is in office. Of course, examples are worthless if they are ignored, and the corporate media has dutifully ignored this story, as should be expected.

Not only did the Democrat Queen of AIPAC, Nancy Pelosi, decline to comment, so did Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. Both understand well what side of the bread gets the butter.

In short, there is nothing to see here, so move on. Naturally, this story, not even registering on the corporate media radar screen, will dissipate soon enough, swept aside by more important news, for instance the paparazzi feeding frenzy over Prince William and his girlfriend and the introduction of the iPhone.

Major loophole in Democrats' ethics bill will benefit controversial lobbying groups

Loophole in Democrats ethics bill will allow institute where Cheney, Rice, Judith Miller were fellows and group tied to Pentagon spy scandal to pay for trips.

01/09/2007 @ 2:18 pm

Filed by Brian Beutler

Democrats’ own Rules Commmittee chair criticizes exemption, bill architecture

WASHINGTON -- A major loophole in the Democrats' recently unveiled ethics package will allow non-profit arms of controversial lobbying organizations to fund travel excursions for members of Congress, RAW STORY has discovered.

Though tasked with authoring the legislation, Rules Committee Chair Louise Slaughter (D-NY) said she disagreed with the exemption in an exclusive interview.

"I would've done it straight out," Slaughter said, noting that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the Aspen Institute are exempt from many of its harshest restrictions.

Slaughter didn’t say who, if anyone, had pushed for the exemption. As chair, the New York Democrat was responsible for pulling together the ethics reform package, which was hammered out between members of the Democratic caucus.

A Democratic staffer close to the bill says Slaughter has singled out AIPAC and the Aspen Institute in conversations with other reporters.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) declined to comment.

Washington ethics watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington – a nonprofit that has loudly decried Republican ethics scandals and enforcement – also declined to comment.

The Aspen Institute, which does not technically employ lobbyists, describes itself as an organization that runs "seminars, policy programs, conferences and leadership development initiatives" intended "to promote nonpartisan inquiry and an appreciation for timeless values." The group concentrates on a wide range of public policies, but its foreign policy and weapons control arm — known as the "Aspen Strategy Group" — have included high-profile and arguably partisan fellows including Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, former Vice President Al Gore Clinton Secretary of State Madeline Albright, and former New York Times reporter Judith Miller.

However, the group does pay for members to attend what spokesman Jim Spiegelman described as, “intensive, multi-day informational discussions on mostly foreign policy issues, wherein the institute takes “members of congress on together on a trip and focuses on a given subject whether it’s the international environment, or non-proliferation or another [foreign policy] topic.”

AIPAC, on the other hand, is widely believed to be the most powerful lobbying organization in Washington, and it has used its might, some say, to help end the political careers of several members of congress who had been critical of Israel including Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) and Earl Hilliard (D-AL). It was recently implicated in an espionage scandal involving Pentagon analyst Larry Franklin who was suspected of passing sensitive legislation to Israel through contacts in AIPAC. It has also mobilized millions of dollars to fund non-violent defense technologies and has attempted to disrupt activities of militant groups like Hezbollah and Hamas.

AIPAC declined to comment on being singled out by Slaughter, but spokesman Josh Block described the educational trips to Israel as “substantive, educational, and valuable.” He also pointed out that AIPAC had testified before congress last year on the issue of privately funded travel.

In that testimony, Bradley Gordon, AIPAC’s director for policy and governmental affairs, recommended that there “be more disclosure to the Ethics Committee both in advance and after the trip. A well-defined preapproval process is essential. We also think it is important to publicly disclose information about the trip after the trip is complete.”

Scores of 501(c)(3) organizations are headquartered in Washington, and many serve as platforms for advocating their causes. The Save Darfur Coalition and Human Rights Campaign each maintain 501(c)(3) status.

AIPAC singled out.

Slaughter also detailed how she will ensure that the new rules are widely enforced and how as-yet-undetermined provisions will be strong enough to forbid unethical conduct.

The package is being touted as a watershed reform, intended to stem the corrupting influence of lobbyists that plagued the 109th Congress and which many critics say cost Republicans control of the legislature.

However, the rules do little to sever ties between members of Congress and political action committees (PACs) and non-profits, many of which are affiliated with the lobbying offices that are the targets of the new restrictions. They also allow "institutions of higher education," as defined by the Higher Education Act of 1965, to repay the House for expenses incurred by members traveling under their auspices.

A source close to the Rules Committee indicated that though Slaughter would prefer more restrictive measures, the rules require "a unanimous vote in our caucus" and a majority on the floor of the House.

According to an AIPAC spokesperson, AIPAC benefits from these exemptions because it is affiliated with a 501(c)(3) organization called the American Israel Education Foundation (AIEF), which funds educational trips for private citizens and public officials. Organizations with that designation do not conduct lobbying directly and therefore are allowed to fund travel for members. According to a study by the Center for Public Integrity (CPI), the group spent nearly one-million dollars on congressional travel from January 2000 through mid-2005. The Aspen Institute, on the other hand spent more than $3.5 million on member travel during the same period. According to the CPI “no other sponsor’s spending came close.”

AIPAC, through AIEF, also pays for educational trips for journalists, though the group does not ask reporters to write about their experiences. Jacob Weisberg, the editor of the online magazine Slate, recently disclosed — in a story defending President Bush against charges of complicity in last summer’s Israel-Lebanon war — that he’d traveled to Israel with AIPAC. Slate is owned by the Washington Post Company.

Ethics panel details still unknown

A number of other provisions contained within the new rules will hinge on the activities of the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (more generally known as the Ethics Committee) and on future campaign finance reform efforts.

Yet to be finalized are guidelines governing member spending. Those guidelines will be written by the Ethics Committee and will be based upon the "connection between a trip and official duties," "the reasonableness of an amount spent by a sponsor," [the] relationship between an event and an officially connected purpose," and "[the] relationship between a source of funding and an event."

Slaughter said she will not accept any guidelines from the Ethics Committee that do not clearly and strictly limit those expenditures.

"I won't allow it," Slaughter said. "I don't imagine that there will be a problem."

When asked by RAW STORY about the strength of the guidelines, an aide close to the ethics committee said that they were likely to be "not tough but transparent."

Citing recent ethical imbroglios that went largely unpunished, Slaughter indicated that she ultimately would like to see the Ethics Committee's role overseeing the activities of members taken over by an independent commission.

"I think after Foley and, now, Weldon, we need a bipartisan panel of retired federal judges to eventually oversee the congress. It's just too difficult for them to oversee themselves."

In December, the Ethics Committee released a report that was highly critical of House Republican Leadership actions before, during, and after the Mark Foley page scandal broke out, but called for very few punitive measures against the members involved.

This week's ruling by the Ethics Committee, that Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL) and outgoing Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA) had taken inappropriately funded travel excursions, resulted in both members agreeing to reimburse the cost of their trips.

Feeney will pay the treasury over $5000 for a trip he took in 2003 that was sponsored by disgraced former lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Weldon will repay his sponsors — who were not named — for the entire cost of his trip.

The rules package amends the house rules of the 109th Congress in ways that specifically forbid the types of junkets and hiring practices perpetrated by former Rep. Tom Delay (R-TX) and influence peddler Jack Abramoff, who was recently sentenced to over five years in prison for acts of fraud committed in his capacity as a lobbyist.

One source noted, though, that the problem with the old rules was not that they allowed unethical conduct, but that under the watch of the Republican leadership they were never routinely enforced.

Echoing that concern, ethics watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics applauded the bill but cautioned that its effectiveness will depend on oversight.

"The new Democratic leadership deserves credit for introducing legislation that tackles the ethics issues that plagued the last Congress," CREW executive director Melanie Sloan in a statement.

"Enforcement is the key to ethics reform,” she added. “Congress must create an independent ethics oversight body, such as an Office of Public Integrity, to restore public confidence in Congress."

Raw Story reporter Michael Roston contributed reporting for this article.

Push for Lobby Database Fades

By Tory Newmyer
Roll Call Staff
January 9, 2007

Lobbyists bracing for tough new disclosure requirements from the Democrats’ ethics reform drive can breathe a little easier.

Excerpts

Democratic leaders appear to be backing away from a provision included in ethics proposals last year that would require lobbyists to detail their contacts with Members of Congress.

The plan was met with stiff resistance from labor and nonprofit groups, which argue that the requirement would be onerous, impossible to apply consistently and could chill contact on politically sensitive topics.