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.

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?

The Senate Ethics Committee released two letters (Dodd, Conrad) today clearing Sens. Chris Dodd and Kent Conrad of ethics violations in a case where both senators were members of a Countrywide "VIP" loan program. These letters concluded a year-long investigation into the "VIP" program and the loans the senators received.

The Committee found that the two senators did not violate Senate ethics rules prohibiting members from accepting outside gifts. The rule in question does not cover "loans from banks and other financial institutions on terms generally available to the public." The committee also ruled that while the "VIP" loans did offer "quicker, more efficient loan processing and some discounts," the discounts provided "were not the best deals that were available at Countrywide or in the marketplace at large."

The senators did receive a chiding for not exhibiting care in their dealings with Countrywide. The Committee told both senators that they "should have excercised more vigilance in [their] dealings with Countrywide in order to avoid the appearance that [they] were receiving preferential treatment based on [their] status as Senator[s]."

In response to the investigation that Committee declared that it should have issued guidance on the receipt of loans and the involvement of senators in special loan programs. The Committee expects to issue a guidance to members in the future.

The organization that filed the initial ethics complaint, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), stated in a blog post that this amounts to "battered wife" syndrome.

"Like a battered woman who explains she brought the beating on herself, the committee faulted itself for failing to ‘provide more guidance to the Senate community about issues surrounding mortgage negotiations.’ Over a year has passed since CREW filed its complaint and the committee became aware of this issue. Now would be a good time for the committee to start proactively providing its promised advice.”

The Ethics Committee could also review legislation that has been introduced requiring limited disclosure of home loan information on personal financial disclosure forms (S. 1632).

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.

Burris-Blagojevich Tape

Zach Roth, being slightly more charitable than I would be, over at TPM Muckraker does the best job of giving some context to this conversation of the absurd.

So, the Senate Ethics Committee is going to investigate Sen. Roland Burris for his admission that he sought to raise money for the defrocked former Governor of Illinois Rod Blagojevich as he was seeking appointment to the state's open Senate seat. The Ethics Committee is, as most know, a black hole where investigations go to die. Anyone remember that Ethics investigation into Sen. Ted Stevens? That's right, it never happened.

The whole ethics process in Congress is a joke. Outside observers consistently declare that the process is worthless and appears dead, while lawmakers continue to insist that the ethics process is alive and well. It's a running gag in Washington. In fact, it's exactly like this:

While the Ethics Committee continues "pining for the fjords," I'll be waiting for the state's attorney investigation into Burris' alleged perjury and not the investigation of the late Ethics Committee.

An investigation begins into the Friends of Angelo. Stevens' conviction prompts reform group push. Some people don't like transparency. That and more in today's news:

"Friends of Angelo" beware! The FBI is investigating the "VIP" home loan program for public officials operated by Countrywide. Countrywide chief Angelo Mozilo made sure that public officials who could be influential in matters relating to his business received "VIP" rates on interest rates and loan fees. Sen. Chris Dodd and Sen. Kent Conrad both received "VIP" loans from Mozilo's Countrywide. They are currently both cooperating with a Senate Ethics Committee investigation. The operator of the "VIP" program Robert Feinberg spoke to federal investigators noting, "he's not aware of any discounts linked to favors, but he did see e-mails noting the potential value of the relationships to Countrywide's political and business interests." Both Conrad and Dodd stated that they did not know that a "VIP" program would provide them with special perks and savings. Feinberg, however, responds, "nine times out of ten, once you mention 'V.I.P' the person's gonna ask you 'what am i getting for being in this V.I.P department?' Or 'what am I getting because I know Angelo?' Or 'I talked to Angelo and he said I'm getting this.'"

Sen. Ted Stevens faced a welcome reception among fellow Republicans in Alaska as he denounced the "corrupt prosecutors" who successfully won seven convictions against the seven-term senator. Back in Washington, reform groups are organizing to pressure the Senate to create an independent body, working in conjunction with the Senate Ethics Committee, to oversee ethics complaints. The House approved an independent oversight board this year. The ethics committees in both chambers have taken flack for failing to properly police their members. While the ethics process has, since the eighties, primarily been used as a partisan tool, the system completely shut down after former Majority Leader Tom DeLay was reprimanded multiple times for various abuses of House rules.

Some dare call it transparency. The Aspen Times reports on local political donors who are uneasy about the availability of campaign contribution information online. Most of these individuals did not know that their contributions would be part of the public record and are upset that Google searches for their name turn up their political contributions. Involvement in the activities of public figures, particularly the financing of them, requires disclosure to ensure an open and honest system of governance. There is no reason to fear Big Transparency.

If you're paying attention to the presidential campaign and checking polls every half-hour you may want to check a decent predictor of the outcome, lobbyist shuffling on K Street. Comcast recently fired their Republican lobbyist Kerry Knott, a former Dick Armey aide, and replaced him with Melissa Maxfield, a former aide to former Sen. Tom Daschle. Daschle is, of course, a top aide to Sen. Barack Obama and noted as a potential White House Chief of Staff or cabinet secretary, in the case that Obama wins the Nov. 4 election. Companies are already girding up for future battles by taking on lobbyists who would have influence in a potential Obama administration.

Today, NARAL Pro-Choice Oregon filed an ethics complaint against Sen. Gordon Smith for using Senate property to make a political message. That adds NARAL Pro-Choice and their donors to Sen. John Ensign's enemy list. So far as I can figure it out, these are the groups that Sen. Ensign wants to unconstitutionally force (see: NAACP v. Alabama) to disclose their donors:

NARAL Pro-Choice Oregon Judicial Watch Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington U.S. Justice Foundation National Law and Policy Center

Watch out, if you want accountability for your senator Sen. Ensign might add you to his enemies list. (Rumors have it that Sen. Ensign's list is written on a beverage napkin with crayons.)

For background and action check out Ellen's post from yesterday and Pass223.com.