No longer will I be able to use the word "cuckold" on this blog.

Sen. John Ensign will no longer be a senator effective May 3. The embattled Nevadan is resigning his seat after 11 years amid a Senate Ethics Committee investigation into his dealings with the former staffer turned lobbyist that he cuckolded (okay, one more time).

Ensign's rationale for retirement is a tried-and-true one: the investigation is putting too much pressure on his family. This is a fair statement. These investigations tend to put extreme pressure on family members involved, particularly when the matter is so personal. While this may be a fair excuse it also belies the fact that the committee investigation into Ensign was likely getting too close for comfort.

Last year the Department of Justice dropped a probe of Ensign's conduct with his former chief of staff Doug Hampton and instead brought charges against Hampton for violating a number of lobbying statutes. The Senate Ethics Committee, which usually defers investigation while the Department of Justice conducts criminal investigations, continued their investigation after the criminal investigation was dropped. Committee Chair Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., stated that the committee will not end its investigation, "The Senate Ethics Committee has worked diligently for 22 months on this matter and will complete its work in a timely fashion. Senator Ensign has made the appropriate decision."

There is little doubt that a committee report on the investigation will be deeply embarrassing for Ensign with details of his aid to Hampton as a lobbyist and the sordid and sad details of his affair with Hampton's wife. Ensign's resignation could be a sign that the investigation uncovered new details regarding how Ensign helped Hampton obtain both his lobbying job and his lobbying clients, who were all close to Ensign and sought influence in his office.

Ensign's resignation is a common practice among lawmakers facing serious ethics inquiries from their peers. It is one biggest reasons why lawmakers rarely face sanction or expulsion. Notable resignations amid inquiries included Sen. Bob Packwood, Reps. Bob Ney and Randy Cunningham (both of whom were convicted of felonies), and Rep. Mark Foley.

The Justice Department just indicted Doug Hampton, a former aide to Sen. John Ensign, for lobbying Ensign's office prior to the conclusion of the one year cooling off period after leaving his congressional position.

This guy is a modern day Job: His boss sleeps with his wife, then helps him circumvent lobbying laws to get clients because Ensign felt bad about cuckolding him, and then Ensign is let off the hook and he gets indicted.

Why the Justice Department won't charge Ensign is beyond me. Ensign helped Hampton violate the lobbying statute with full knowledge that Hampton was not supposed to be in contact with Ensign's office.

Lawmakers have to disclose the income earned by their spouse on their financial disclosures. They have to disclose whether their spouse or children received privately paid travel on their travel disclosures. Why shouldn't they have to disclose their mistresses (or kept men, in the case of women or gay men) when they receive benefits from private individuals due to their relationship with the lawmaker?

Now this may be a bit facetious, but it's clearly become an issue in Congress. Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. was found to have used a major donor to fly his mistress to visit him in Chicago. Sen. John Ensign is still under federal investigation for making payments, through his parents, to his mistress' family. If similar payments would be required to be disclosed for spouses why not apply them to mistresses too?

This does seem to be an in kind gift to the member, particularly in the case of Rep. Jackson, and those should be disclosed or prohibited. I wonder if the ethics committee would care to look into the violation of gift rules in this case.

In the 1970s there were a number of cases of lawmakers hiring their mistresses as secretaries. Some of them couldn't even type. Rep. Wayne Hays and John Young kept their mistresses on staff. Rep. Allen Howe and Joe Waggonner were found guilty on prostitution charges. This was all before the passage of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978.

The Ethics in Government Act instituted the disclosure regime that governs privately paid travel and financial disclosure. Perhaps it should be expanded to include the perks that lawmakers secure for their paramours.

Sen. John Ensign appears headed for a shorter than expected Senate career. Some senators are calling for public ethics hearings into his alleged pay-offs and job interventions to aid the cuckolded husband of the senator's former mistress. The last time public hearings of this nature were held was during the 1991 Keating Five scandal. Sen. Bob Packwood, who resigned under a somewhat similar cloud, faced calls for public ethics hearings as well. From Politico:

Sen. John Ensign is facing an increasingly uncertain future in the Senate, with a senior Democrat saying that the Nevada Republican should resign if allegations against him are true and other senators mulling the possibility of public hearings into his extramarital affair with a former staffer.

“If it is true that indeed he did make these payoffs and all that kind of stuff, then I would think the honorable thing would be to resign,” Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) said in an interview.

...

The bipartisan Senate Ethics Committee is not ruling out holding public hearings in the case, a move that some believe could help drive Ensign from office. A number of senators signaled to POLITICO they’d be supportive of seeing Ensign sit before a public forum to address the allegations, something that has not been done since the Keating Five scandal in 1991.

There's already a pretty serious FBI investigation into Ensign's activities and that may preclude public hearings from ever happening. The threat of these hearings combined with the flagging support from his Republican compatriots could lead a senator who can't raise more than $50 for reelection to reconsider their position in the Senate.

While everyone's been running around writing about former congresstickler Eric Massa, Eric Lichtblau and Eric Lipton of the New York Times spent some time digging further into a congressional sex scandal that actually involved some kind of corruption.

Previously undisclosed e-mail messages turned over to the F.B.I. and Senate ethics investigators provide new evidence about Senator John Ensign’s efforts to steer lobbying work to the embittered husband of his former mistress and could deepen his legal and political troubles.

Mr. Ensign, Republican of Nevada, suggested that a Las Vegas development firm hire the husband, Douglas Hampton, after it had sought the senator’s help on several energy projects in 2008, according to e-mail messages and interviews with company executives.

Investigators are looking at a number of issues including whether Ensign aided Hampton in circumventing the one-year lobbying ban for staffers-turned-lobbyists. Considering that the F.B.I. is involved in the investigation, it is unlikely that the Senate Ethics Committee will rule on ethics violations against Ensign before the criminal investigation is complete.

On a related aside: I'm with Matt Yglesias here. If you're a journalist covering Congress, particularly ethical malfeasance in Congress, why not spend some time covering scandals like Ensign's or Charlie Rangel or the PMA Group (and why the Ethics Committee spiked the investigation)? Do we really need more information on tickle-parties and Eric Massa's deranged sense of self-worth?

Earlier this year, Sen. John Ensign, a rising star in the Republican party, revealed that he had had an affair with the wife of a top aide and close friend. Unlike the more famous affair revelation of South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, Ensign's affair wasn't a tale of true love, but a story about corrupt politicians paying out hush money.

The New York Times reports today that Ensign was deeply involved in providing money to his mistress and her husband. Ensign also helped the former aide and cuckolded husband, Douglas Hampton, get a job as a lobbyist and persuaded campaign contributors to hire Hampton. According to the Times, Ensign and Hampton then conspired to break lobbying laws that preclude a former staffer from lobbying their previous employer for one year. Ensign proceeded to connect Hampton to policy makers and work to fulfill the requests of Hampton's clients.

Here's the key piece -- if one piece can be picked out -- of the Times article:

Mr. Hampton said he and Mr. Ensign were aware of the lobbying restriction but chose to ignore it. He recounted how the senator helped him find clients and ticked off several steps Mr. Ensign took to assist them with their agendas in Washington, activities confirmed by federal officials and executives with the businesses. “The only way the clients could get what John was essentially promising them — which was access — was if I still had a way to work with his office,” Mr. Hampton said. “And John knew that.” ... Mr. Hampton, who believed that Mr. Ensign’s help with his clients was crucial to his success, admitted he had ignored the restrictions. He said that it was November Inc.’s responsibility to register him as a lobbyist, but he added that he did not insist the company do so because it would have made obvious that he was making inappropriate contacts on Capitol Hill. As for violating the one-year ban, he said he did so at Mr. Ensign’s direction.

This will, in all likelihood, lead to an ethics investigation, which could defer to a Justice Department investigation if one were to be launched. All in all, it looks pretty bad for the Nevada senator once considered a potential 2012 presidential contender.

Support from leadership already appears weak. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said the last thing Ensign might want to hear when asked about the Times article, "Sen. Ensign continues to serve." (This is exactly what Robert Gibbs had to say about Climate Czar Van Jones before he was canned.)

In light of revelations in the New York Times regarding Sen. John Ensign's apparent law and Senate rule breaking I am reposting the following blog post I put up earlier this year:

Since Wednesday, when the sex scandal engulfing Sen. John Ensign morphed into a public expense scandal, we've learned quite a few new details. Ensign was not blackmailed by Douglas Hampton. Cynthia Hampton's salary at Ensign's campaign doubled during the time of their affair. Ensign helped get jobs for Douglas Hampton and his son after they left Ensign's Senate office and the NRSC, respectively. What we still don't know is whether Douglas Hampton was handsomely paid with taxpayer money when he left Ensign's Senate office and whether this could constitute as hush money. There are beginning to be calls for a Senate Ethics Committee investigation with Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) asking for the committee to investigate and require disclosure from Ensign. This is just such an awesome idea and here's why: Back in 2007, around the time that Ensign was pursuing his close friend's wife, Ensign was leading a crusade to derail a bill that would require electronic filing of Senate campaign finance reports. (Yes, this bill, the one Sunlight has been advocating for since 2006.) How was Ensign trying to derail the bill? By offering an amendment that would require any group filing an ethics complaint with the Senate Ethics Committee against a senator to disclose all of their donors (pretty much any lawyer will tell you that this is unconstitutional). This would, in effect, stymie the open process by which the Senate Ethics Committee accepts complaints and would likely stop the committee from pursuing investigations. The Senate Ethics Committee is currently far more active than the House Ethics Committee, which does not accept outside complaints. (Currently, Sen. Pat Roberts is trying to block the same electronic filing bill with Ensign's anti-investigation amendment. If you want to get rid of this Ensign protecting amendment, you can help out here.) Now, I don't know if Sen. Ensign was trying to make the ethics process difficult to protect his own hide, but give a listen to how seriously he takes this issue. He even states that ethics complaints could be written on a bar napkin. I'd gander that writing on bar napkins is something that Ensign is more used to than the Senate Ethics Committee.

After speculating about whether Sen. John Ensign's affair included payouts to his mistress and her family, about every news outlet is reporting that Ensign's parents, who are casino moguls, paid off Cynthia Hampton's family to the tune of $96,000. Some reports state that these payments could be just the tip of the iceberg. And no one has yet dug deeper into the payments coming from Ensign's congressional office -- that would be taxpayer money -- and his campaigns.

The biggest concern with Ensign's parents paying off the Hamptons is that, in doing so, they relieved their son of having to make the payments himself and file them in his taxes. This revelation, had Ensign run for president, would have been severely damaging. Of course, as we've seen, the details of the affair and subsequent payments have come out already. (Although not in the self-reflective manner of Gov. Mark Sanford.)

Like most of the current bizarre news spectacles pouring out over the last few weeks -- Sanford and Gov. Palin's awkward resignation press conference -- there will be more information coming out soon. Was there more money? And where did it come from? Hopefully, the Senate Ethics Committee starts to look at this right away. (Or maybe the IRS.)

Since Wednesday, when the sex scandal engulfing Sen. John Ensign morphed into a public expense scandal, we've learned quite a few new details. Ensign was not blackmailed by Douglas Hampton. Cynthia Hampton's salary at Ensign's campaign doubled during the time of their affair. Ensign helped get jobs for Douglas Hampton and his son after they left Ensign's Senate office and the NRSC, respectively.

What we still don't know is whether Douglas Hampton was handsomely paid with taxpayer money when he left Ensign's Senate office and whether this could constitute as hush money. There are beginning to be calls for a Senate Ethics Committee investigation with Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) asking for the committee to investigate and require disclosure from Ensign. This is just such an awesome idea and here's why:

Back in 2007, around the time that Ensign was pursuing his close friend's wife, Ensign was leading a crusade to derail a bill that would require electronic filing of Senate campaign finance reports. (Yes, this bill, the one Sunlight has been advocating for since 2006.) How was Ensign trying to derail the bill? By offering an amendment that would require any group filing an ethics complaint with the Senate Ethics Committee against a senator to disclose all of their donors (pretty much any lawyer will tell you that this is unconstitutional). This would, in effect, stymie the open process by which the Senate Ethics Committee accepts complaints and would likely stop the committee from pursuing investigations. The Senate Ethics Committee is currently far more active than the House Ethics Committee, which does not accept outside complaints.

(Currently, Sen. Pat Roberts is trying to block the same electronic filing bill with Ensign's anti-investigation amendment. If you want to get rid of this Ensign protecting amendment, you can help out here.)

Now, I don't know if Sen. Ensign was trying to make the ethics process difficult to protect his own hide, but give a listen to how important he takes this issue. He even states that ethics complaints could be written on a bar napkin. I'd gander that writing on bar napkins is something that Ensign is more used to than the Senate Ethics Committee.

Yesterday, Sen. John Ensign admitted to an affair with a campaign staffer who was also the wife of Ensign's administrative assistant. The couple ensnared in this torrid love triangle is Douglas Hampton, the administrative assistant, and Cynthia Hampton, an employee of Ensign's 2008 campaign and his Battle Born PAC. We know that Ensign revealed the affair because Douglas Hampton essentially blackmailed the senator. But, were the Hamptons receiving excessive pay from Ensign during the affair period? Politico looked at the official office payments to Douglas Hampton and found some numbers that look a bit... odd:

Douglas Hampton was paid about $101,000 in 2008 and $144,000 in 2007 as Ensign’s administrative assistant. But a financial disclosure form he filed in 2007 and 2008 – required for senior congressional staffers - showed only checking and savings account worth a maximum $30,000 combined.

A review of public records shows that the Hamptons in 2006 took out a $1.2 million mortgage on their Las Vegas home, at an interest rate of 8 percent.

Now, you might immediately think that $144,000 for an administrative assistant is an absurd amount, but administrative assistant is often synonymous with chief of staff on the Hill. However, if you look to the reporting period of 4/1/2008 to 5/1/08:

Hampton was paid approximately $20,000 over this one month period. At the same time, Ensign hired a chief of staff, John Lopez, ostensibly to replace Hampton. If we are to assume that Hampton's annual salary is around $144,000 -- the cap on staffer salaries is around $160,000 -- then the $20,000 for one month ($240,000 in a year) would be far higher than his normal rate of pay. Over the four months of 2008 Hampton received $101,000, far more than his rate of pay for all of 2007.

There are a few points to be made here:

1) Staff salary reporting is often not aligned with the dates shown. If you look at Legistorm, you will see dates aligned with amounts. This is often not accurate, or includes bonuses with attribution.

2) Hampton could have collected his vacation pay, sick leave and a bonus at his termination, which would make his salary appear inflated.

3) Hampton could have stayed on to train Lopez in his new job. This would explain the overlap of two employees holding the same job.

(More: While writing this post, Politico released another report showing that the son of Douglas and Cynthia Hampton was on the payroll of the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) while Ensign headed the organization. Also, this post about whether the Hamptons were pushed to extort Ensign due to a subprime mortgage on their house is worth a look too.)

Since these questions are integral to whether Hampton was received extra pay while Ensign was sleeping with his wife, there are important disclosure problems that need to be addressed. They are:

• The Senate does not disclose their office expenditures online in any format at all. The House is planning on disclosing online in August. The Senate has no plans.
• We could use better staff salary expenditure information so that the pay doesn't look so confusing. Sorry Hill staffers, I know you hate it, but you work for the government.
• Why is it that Senate campaigns do not disclose expenditures? Yet another failure due to the lack of electronic filing in the Senate. Due to the lack of electronic filing we can't -- easily -- find the precise amounts paid to Cynthia Hampton through Ensign's campaign committee, only his PAC.