Last week my colleague Bill Allison wrote about the new role of Virginia Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, as a lobbyist for her newly formed Liberty Consulting. This follows Thomas' role as the head of a post-Citizens United nonprofit known as Liberty Central. Allison noted that Virginia Thomas has left a "paperless, pixel-less" trail behind her:

The filing shows that, at least during its first two months, Liberty Central did not pay salaries to any of its officials, including Thomas, who is listed as the organization's president.

Liberty Central did not disclose any activity to the Federal Election Commission, which tracks the independent expenditures and electioneering communications of outside organizations, nor did it register as an independent expenditure committee--groups that, in the wake of the Citizens United ruling, can raise and spend unlimited funds attempting to influence federal elections as long as they do not coordinate with candidates.

Because federal election and lobbying disclosure laws explicitly state the kinds of activity that require disclosure, groups that have a political purpose can influence elections and lobby while avoiding disclosure.

Thomas' paper trail may not only be paperless and pixel-less, according to Slate's Dave Weigel it may also be needless. Weigel's contention is that Liberty Central, Thomas' Tea Party-inspired nonprofit, did little to nothing during the 2010 midterms. The lack of disclosure that Allison notes shows that Liberty Central did not engage in the same types of electoral activities as the other conservative groups that played hard in last fall's elections. Trusting Weigel's knowledge of internal conservative group advocacy, I'm going to believe his contention that Liberty Central did little grassroots organizing as well. It really doesn't look like Liberty Central did much of anything.

Why write about this? Weigel ends his post on Thomas with a question, "But what if she's not much of a conspirator? What if she's more of a dilettante?" What if she's more a dilettante, indeed!

If she is totally ineffective and a complete non-player in actual conservative politics, than I am inclined to conclude that she is playing her marriage to a Supreme Court justice to her financial advantage. And to what advantage do contributors to her "political" efforts seek?

This, I believe, is a serious question. Should a Supreme Court justice's spouse use their marriage as a way to gain donor support for political causes? What more should be disclosed to assuage the public's concern of a conflict of interest?

Considering that Clarence Thomas failed to report his wife's salary on his public financial disclosure for years, I find this issue to be in need of a serious response. In other cases, including that of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, more disclosure than mandated was asked of a person appointed to office to assuage public concerns about conflicts of interest. This is one of those times.

Last year the New York Times ran an article on the corporate donations to charities associated with members of Congress. The article showed that corporate and lobbyist donations are able to flow in unlimited sums to the favored causes of specific lawmakers, including to charities bearing the name of the lawmaker. This provides another conduit for influence seeking that falls outside of this normally regulated and disclosed realm. It seems odd that members of Congress do not have to disclose on their financial disclosure reports the non-profits and charities that they are associated with.

Only three of the twenty-one lawmakers mentioned in the New York Times article actually disclosed their association with the charity or non-profit affiliated with them. A further search of contribution records found another six lawmaker affiliated nonprofits, none of which were disclosed by the affiliated lawmaker. This may be due to an oversight in financial disclosure reporting rules. The official rules state:

The identity of all positions held ... as an officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, representative, employee, or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other business enterprise, any nonprofit organization, any labor organization, or any education or other institution other than the United States. This subparagraph shall not require the reporting of positions held in any religious, social, fraternal, or political entity and positions solely of an honorary nature.

This rule only covers obvious conflicts that should be disclosed. It leaves a series of other conflicts out that the New York Times article helps to illuminate including contributions to organizations that a lawmaker founded or are run by family members. This disclosure rule should go as far as influence does by requiring the disclosure of all charities affiliated with lawmakers and their immediate family.

There is a clear connection between these charitable donations of corporations to these organizations and their attempts to gain access and influence lawmaker activity. The New York Times article quoted a spokesman for Duke Energy on his company's contributions to these charities:

Tom Williams, a spokesman for Duke Energy, acknowledged that the company participates in lawmakers’ charitable events in part to get access to them and push its agenda. “We are not apologetic about it at all: it is part of our overall effort to work with policy makers,” he said. “Social settings are always a good way to get to know people.”

Lawmakers should be required to disclose nonprofits and charities that are affiliated with them even if they do not sit on the board or hold honorary titles. If companies are going out of their way to contribute and list these lawmakers as honorees then lawmakers should have to disclose these affiliations on their annual financial disclosure reports. It seems completely off-base that Rep. Jim Clyburn does not disclose his affiliation with the James E. Clyburn Research and Scholarship Foundation or that Rep. Nick Rahall does not disclose his relationship with the Rahall Transportation Institute.

Furthermore, lawmakers should be required to disclose the affiliations their spouse holds with nonprofits or charities. Huntington Bancshares reports a contribution of $5,000 to the Community Foundation of West Chester-Libery in honor of Rep. John Boehner. No where are we informed that Boehner's wife serves on a committee at the foundation. These kinds of relationships should be disclosed.

There is currently one way to track the contributions made by corporations and individuals to charities on behalf of members of Congress. The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 required new disclosure filings regarding contributions made to lawmakers and on behalf of or in honor of lawmakers.

Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) chairwoman Mary Schapiro received nearly $9 million in compensation and retirement benefits from the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) when she left to head the government regulator.

The total amount of compensation was released in a report and posted on the blog ZeroHedge yesterday. FINRA is a self-regulatory organization (SRO) that was tasked with watchdogging the securities industry. Schapiro was the CEO of FINRA from 1996 to 2009. She oversaw the SRO as Wall Street boomed and busted during that same period.

One chief point of contention for FINRA is what kind of oversight they provided for the criminal hedge fund manager Bernie Madoff. In August, a majority of broker-members of FINRA voted for the organization to release more information related to FINRA's ties to and oversight of Madoff. FINRA subsequently rejected an independent review of its Madoff ties.

SEC officials have met twice with officials from FINRA as the government agency seeks to craft new rules under the Dodd-Frank financial reform law.

Schapiro's financial disclosure document filed upon accepting the nomination to the SEC shows that she received $2.75 million in salary and incentive compensation from FINRA. The disclosure document also shows an additional Defined Benefits Plan that ranges from five to twenty-five million dollars and a 2008 Incentive Compensation that ranges from one to five million dollars. The financial disclosure document is available for viewing here.

Sen. Charles Grassley is diving into the Jonathan Gruber scandal by asking the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to "disclose federal contracts of individuals invited to testify before Congress on healthcare reform." I understand the political motivation behind this, but we could actually take this issue seriously. This proposal could, and should, go much further. So here's a thought experiment and a proposal:

With some serious caveats, all witnesses before congressional committees should be required to disclose contracts, grants and subsidies, both federal and state, that they or their business receive along with any connection, through business or finance, that they have with any sitting member of the committee. Witnesses should also have to disclose whether they are a registered lobbyist and what contributions they have made to committee members. These disclosures should be made in a simple form and then disclosed on the overseeing committee's Web site prior to the committee hearing.

Grassley's concern comes from the case of Jonathan Gruber, a well-respected MIT professor and voice on health care reform, who was revealed to have been given a nearly $400,000 from HHS to consult on the President's health care proposal. This, all the while, acting as a source to many journalists, appearing on television, writing in newspapers and having his research heavily cited in support of the Senate/White House health care bill. Gruber also appeared before the Senate Finance Committee on May 12, 2009 as a witness.

Gruber obviously isn't the only one who is guilty of this kind of non-disclosure. There are likely numerous cases of executives, employees, lobbyists and experts paraded before congressional committees with some kind of undisclosed conflict of interest or connection.

In one case that went before the Ethics Committee, only to be rejected, Rep. Sam Graves invited his wife's business associate to testify before a congressional hearing. While Graves ran this invitation by the Ethics Committee beforehand and the Ethics Committee dismissed the charges, this association and potential conflict of interest was not disclosed to the public.

It is likely that some committees already require witnesses to fill out similar forms to the ones I am proposing. These are, however, not made available to the public. Sunlight supports the online posting of all documents submitted to committees as they relate to hearings.

Now, as to the caveats for any policy resembling the one I just described. First, there would obviously be certain whistleblower protections. Second, if a conflict undermined national security, in nearly all cases, this could remain undisclosed. Third, all personal identify information -- address, etc... -- would not be made publicly available.

Please tell me in the comments how this could be better or rip me apart for proposing this policy.

Rep. John Campbell is offering an amendment to legislation creating a Consumer Financial Protection Agency that would provide a "special interest carve out" for auto dealers. The amendment would strip the the newly proposed agency of its ability to oversee financing by car dealers. Campbell is a former car dealer who currently rents out seven properties to car dealers or car repair shops. (Six car dealerships and one repair shop.)

The 2008 personal financial disclosure filed by Campbell earlier this year shows that the total value of the these properties is between $6,500,007 and $31,000,000 and his total income from the properties to be between $700,000 and $7,000,000. According to a release by Public Campaign and Common Cause, Campbell has received over $170,000 in campaign contributions from auto dealers over his career.

In December of 2008, Campbell stated that he would recuse himself from voting on any automotive bailout plans considering how close his personal finances are tied to the industry. When the Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act (H.R. 7321) did come to a vote, Campbell voted "present," fulfilling his promise to avoid a conflict of interest. Now in the fall of 2009, Campbell has inserted himself directly into a conflict of interest situation by offering an amendment that could potentially affect his bottom line and those of his campaign contributors.

Maybe he should have kept the principled stance he had last year. Are you listening, man?

Senators get their own cell phone towers installed, don't pay for it. Rep. Tim Mahoney continues to sink in yet another installment in "When Sleeping Around Goes Wrong." Rep. Rick Renzi tries to get the 35 criminal counts against him dismissed. This is today's news:

The Washington Post released an excellent investigative piece showing that Verizon and AT&T were both working to install cell phone towers to provide service for Sen. John McCain's Sedona, AZ ranch beginning last year, at a time when McCain's presidential hopes seemed dim. Sen. McCain sits on the Senate Commerce Committee and the installation of free cell phone towers by corporations under the oversight of that same committee certainly counts as a conflict of interest. Also troubling is the ability of the McCain's to hide this seeming in-kind contribution from their personal financial disclosures because it was ostensibly made at the request of Sen. McCain's wife, Cindy. The Senator and his wife keep their finances separate and thus he does not have to fully disclose her financial activities on his annual personal financial disclosure. While the two telecommunications giants eventually abandonded the idea of permanently installing towers, they both provide portable towers at no-cost to the Senator's ranch.

Rep. Rick Renzi, under indictment on 35 counts related to a land swap, accused the government of taping conversations with other members of Congress and bringing the corruption indictment against him for political reasons. Renzi also filed for a dismissal of the charges against him on the grounds that they violate the Speech and Debate Clause. Renzi is under indictment for allegedly using his position in Congress to push through a land swap that eventually netted him $700,000. Apparently, the congressman abides by the motto of the William Jefferson school of congressional corruption, "If you do it in an official capacity, they can't investigate." I don't think that the Speech and Debate Clause was enacted as a way to make congressional offices into corruption safe rooms.

In worsening news for Rep. Tim Mahoney, an FBI investigation into his affairs is expanding to include the second affair with a high level county official, which Mahoney admitted to today, to determine whether he steered federal emergency funds to her county. An aide close to his campaign also announced that Rep. Mahoney may not seek reelection. If this is the case, all replacements should quickly be vetted to make sure that they don't carry on the Foley-Mahoney curse.