The title of his autobiography is And I Haven't Had A Bad Day Since, but Rep. Charlie Rangel may still have more bad days to come, even after receiving a formal censure from his colleagues in the House of Representatives.

Politico is reporting that the Federal Election Commission (FEC) is investigating Rangel's use of political action committee (PAC) funds to pay for his legal fees during the House Ethics Committee investigation that led to his censure.

Campaign finance disclosures filed with the FEC show that Rangel used approximately $400,000 in funds from his PAC to pay legal fees. The use of PAC funds for personal uses is in violation of federal campaign finance laws.

The Sunlight Foundation will provide live coverage of the vote to censure Rep. Charlie Rangel through our Sunlight Live platform momentarily. Please join us here.

Over the past few years ethics allegations have dogged Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y. In response to those allegations Rangel referred his own case to the House Ethics Committee. In the past month, Rangel has faced an ethics trial, where his own peers voted to recommend that the full House censure the 20 term lawmaker. This would be the first official censure of a member of Congress since 1983.

Rep. Rangel is planning to take to the floor to argue that his ethical failings fall short of corruption and criminal wrongdoing and, thus, should not be subject to a censure. Rangel would rather have the House vote to reprimand. A reprimand would include a written rebuke to Rangel, while a censure requires a verbal, public rebuke.

The House Ethics Committee released the text of the resolution to censure Rep. Charlie Rangel. You can view it here: Text of H. Res 1737

Since the C-Span archives only go back to 1987 the best example that I can provide is the 1990 debate on the floor of the House over reprimanding Rep. Barney Frank.

Despite the ethics committee report recommending a reprimand for Frank, Rep. William Dannemeyer introduced a resolution to expel Frank. With Dannemeyer's resolution failing, Rep. Newt Gingrich shows up at the end of the debate to offer a motion to recommit with instructions to censure Rep. Frank instead of reprimand.

I would expect some activity like this to occur during the debate over a censure of Rep. Charlie Rangel. A Republican may offer a resolution to expel instead of censure and, more likely, a Democrat, likely a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, will offer a resolution or a motion to recommit to reprimand Rep. Rangel instead of censuring him.

Three days after making a scene and storming out of his own trial on violating House ethics rules, Rep. Charlie Rangel returned to the full House Ethics Committee after being found guilty on 11 counts of violating ethics rules and begged for mercy while stridently defending his own personal character. After nearly three hours of hearings and even more time in a closed door session the committee voted 9-1 to censure of the 20-term congressman. The censure motion will be voted on by the full House. Before the committee adjourned to determine a punishment, Rangel, in stark relief to his bellicose actions on Monday, rose before the committee after pausing to wipe away tears and stated in a contrite and exhausted voice unfamiliar to the outspoken congressman, “I walk away, no matter the decision, grateful at my opportunity to serve and recognize that if it weren't for God's gift in saving my life I wouldn't be here. I apologize for any embarrassment I've caused you personally or as a member of the greatest institution in the world.” Rangel's contrition came after two years of investigations where the congressman insisted upon his innocence and denounced the committee's investigation, at times to ludicrous degrees. In the past week Rangel has claimed that the committee denied his right to counsel despite retaining counsel up to the date that the trial was announced. During the hearing earlier today, committee counsel Blake Chisam recommended a censure against Rangel after explaining the historical record for similar violations. The committee, which held its first hearing in 1978, has recommended sanctions sixteen times in its history. Four times it has recommended expulsion and only twice has the full House actually voted to expel. On a total of three occasions the full House has rejected the penalty recommended by the committee. A number of these recommended sanctions included similar violations as the ones that Rangel has been found guilty. Former Rep. Bob Sikes was found guilty of violating financial disclosure rules and received a reprimand; former Rep. Jim Traficant was found guilty, among far more serious charges, of misuse of public resources and was expelled; former Speaker Newt Gingrich was found guilty of violating tax laws and was reprimanded and fined $300,000. Rep. Michael McCaul pointed some barbs towards the counsel Chisam during the question and answer session. McCaul was concerned that Chisam had dismissed the notion that Rangel's activity was corrupt. He stated that many out there would consider a sitting chair of the Ways & Means Committee soliciting money from companies with business before the committee for an eponymous educational center. Chisam responded by stating that his statement was his opinion alone and was based on the record of evidence before the committee. Rep. G.K. Butterfield was the most ardent supporter of Rangel on the committee stating his opposition to a censure. Butterfield stated that, “Censure is extreme,” and that while Rangel was sloppy, his errors were not intentional. It is likely that Butterfield cast the lone vote against censure. Butterfield also noted that members of Congress routinely solicit donations from corporations for charities in their name or on their behalf and the only difference is that Rangel used official resources. Rep. Peter Welch continued this line of thought, but took it further, explaining that this isn't the last we've heard of abuses of power. Welch explained that so long as congressmen receive contributions from organizations that have an interest before them in Congress we are bound to find individuals who violate the public's trust. The censure comes after a long and storied career in Congress for Rangel. This record was driven home by the appearance of Rep. John Lewis alongside Rangel. Lewis, a Civil Rights Era hero and perhaps one of the most revered members of Congress, addressed the committee by stating that he did not know the facts of the case, "but I've known Charlie Rangel for over 50 years." The Georgia congressman ran down the list of Rangel's accomplishments: Korean War hero, law degree thanks to the G.I. Bill, marched from Selma to Montgomery and a "hard-working public servant." Lewis concluded by stating, "Charlie Rangel is a good and decent man. I know this man, I think I know his heart." By the end of the hearing Rangel was left sitting in his chair, legs crossed, hands clasped before his face. His eyes stared off into the floor to his right. He shook his leg nervously and intermittently wiped a tear away. After ascending to become chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee only three years ago, this was the chair that he may be remember sitting in.

Yesterday, the adjudicatory subcommittee trying Rep. Charles Rangel on ethics charges announced that they had found the congressman guilty on 11 of 13 charges. Rangel was acquitted on one count and another count was deemed to be redundant to another charge.

According to a report on the guilty charges released by the subcommittee today, Rangel was acquitted on Charge III, which states:

We saw a dose of it yesterday in Charlie Rangel's dramatic exit from his own ethics trial. Today we received a second dose: Rangel has announced that he will run for ranking member of the Ways & Means Committee.

With no bluff, but all bluster, Rep. Charlie Rangel removed himself from his own ethics trial, declaring that the process was unfair, improper and impartial. The key to Rangel's objection was that he did not have counsel and could not afford a legal team in time for the trial. This may look like an attempt to delay the proceedings, to gum them up or a sincere effort to obtain counsel, but what we were really seeing was what was left of Rangel's defense. The only defense left was to give up on the trial and go forward with a PR strategy to lose the trial, but win in the court of public opinion.

Rangel made this effort clear when he was given an opportunity to ask the committee for a formal request for a delay as he sought counsel, but he refused. This was immediately following his speech to the committee about not having counsel. It took Rep. G.K. Butterfield, a committee member, to ask that the committee review Rangel's request to decide whether to grant Rangel more time.

In rejecting the opportunity to request a delay--who knows if this would have influenced the opinions of the committee members--Rangel made clear that his chief complaint, that he could not retain counsel, is largely bluster.

Rangel, in fact, retained counsel as of a month ago. Rangel and his law firm parted ways almost immediately after the trial date was announced.  The New York Times describes the divorce like this, "Mr. Rangel and his defense team from the firm Zuckerman Spaeder parted ways several weeks ago." It is unclear under what circumstances the two parted ways.

What is clear is that Rangel has no interest in mounting his own legal defense before the committee. The spectacle of his speech and rapid exit from his own trial was just that, a spectacle. By removing himself from his own trial he gets to mount his own defense on his own terms, something that he has already begun,

"The process that the Committee has decided to take against me violates the most basic rights of due process that is guaranteed to every person under the Constitution.  The Committee has deprived me of the fundamental right to counsel and has chosen to proceed as if it is fair and impartial and operating according to rules, when in reality they are depriving me of my rights."

That is a piece from a statement released by Rangel's office this afternoon. Rangel is taking his defense, that of an unfairly put-upon public servant, to the public, particularly his constituents. And what does the trial matter if it is a Rangel trial without Rangel? I think that Jean Baudrillard would say that the trial of Charlie Rangel doesn't exist if there is no Rangel in the trial. And who cares about a verdict in a trial that doesn't exist.

It's not clear if Rangel's stunt will work, but it sure has made the committee's operations smaller than it would have been. All of the attention will focus on Rangel's reaction to the ruling of the committee, as he has changed the public perception of the trial and the ethics charges. I don't think that it will save him from punishment that could lead to the end of his tenure in Congress--not through expulsion, but with a seat as a back-bencher with no fundraising sources. It could, however, aid his reputation when he does leave Congress among the only community he cares about, his constituents.

The ethics trials of high profile Democrats Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters will be held after the November midterm elections.

According to a release by House Ethics Committee chair Zoe Lofgren, the committee will begin hearings on the Rangel matter on November 15 and on the Waters matter on November 29.

Stay tuned for more information.

"Now is not the time to play politics simply because an election is looming in a few weeks," Sen. Susan Collins said as she cast a vote to filibuster the defense authorization bill that contained a repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, a measure that she supported.

I saw this line last week as I watched the usually somnolent and despairing Inside Washington hosted by Gordon Peterson on PBS. Peterson immediately echoed my own thoughts upon hearing Collins' predictable pronouncement. And I paraphrase, "Right before an election seems like the best time to play politics to me."

This is sort of the no s--- statement of past thirty years, where all pundits and politicians bemoan politics as they practice it. It's also an acknowledgment that Sen. Collins' statement itself is a political play. All politics is political and all politicians practice politics. Everyone should know this by now and stop complaining about politicians being political.

That being said, I come to the Republicans on the House Ethics Committee playing politics right before an election. Committee Republicans are demanding that Chair Zoe Lofgren hold ethics trials for embattled congressmen Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters. This public call is a serious break in committee decorum and represents an attempt to politicize the ethics trials even more than they already have been.

The Democrats, of course, postponed the trials for political reasons too. Do you think that the Democrats want to go into the toughest election they've faced in sixteen years with two prominent members facing trials and verdicts? Hell no! So they postpone the trials, which makes the Republicans try to make some noise off of it.

Politicians playing politics. Get used to it.

Now I'm not going to condemn the political maneuvering here, but I will point out the obvious. A congressional ethics process that relies on self-regulation will ultimately reach undesirable conclusions that increase cynicism in the public and reduce trust in our elected officials. The process will also, invariably, become mucked up by politics as these are politicians judging other politicians, sometimes of the opposing party.

The Office of Congressional Ethics, an independent body that members of both parties are unhappy with, is already working to increase the accountability of the ethics process. Instead of bemoaning accountability and a stable ethics process, lawmakers should embrace it by maintaining and expanding the Office of Congressional Ethics.

My colleague Lisa Rosenberg wrote about the need to double the office's budget next year, "As Congress struggles to redeem its reputation in the eyes of the public, it should be loathe to return to the days when representatives were solely responsible for policing their own. Both parties should demonstrate their commitment to transparency and accountability by giving the OCE the power and the budget to continue the good work it has begun."

Seeing how the ethics process can be so quickly fouled by politics, it's time for both parties to help increase the independence of ethics oversight.