The House Ethics Committee admonished Rep. Charles Rangel for trips he took in 2007 and 2008 to a business-funded event in the Caribbean. Last year, I wrote an article examining the curious case of the word "Caribbean" being the most used word in the Congressional Record for an entire day. It turns out that it was Rangel who was using the word and his word choice is actually connected to those trips he took to the Caribbean that led to an ethics investigation. Here's the full article from last April reposted:

According to Carl Malamud, Sunlight is “truly styling” due to our appearance in the Reliable Source in an article about Capitol Words and the top words used by a smattering of lawmakers. I thought I’d provide a little, friendly correction to the gossip mavens at the Washington Post regarding the use (overuse) of the word “Caribbean” by Rep. Charles Rangel — something that piqued my interest a while back.The Reliable Source notes correctly that the word most often released from Rangel’s mouth over the past year was “Caribbean.” However, they claim this is due to his being under investigation for failure to pay taxes on a Dominican villa. This isn’t correct, but the reality does have a connection to Rangel’s troubles.

Now we need to first note that the word use is according to the Congressional Record, which I think we’ve mentioned before includes a whole bunch of words that were never actually spoken on the floor of either chamber of Congress. (You can even fabricate an entire conversation as Sam Brownback and Lindsey Graham once did.) Instead of speaking words, congressmen can insert them into the Record during debate or in the Extension of Remarks. Rangel’s use of the word falls into this latter category and mostly due to his insertion of articles penned for the New York CaribNews (he uses a variety of different spellings for this news outlet).

During the 110th Congress, Rangel inserted articles by the New York CaribNews 45 times. The word “Caribbean,” inserted by Rangel, appears on a total of 77 separate insertions into the Exetensions of Remarks.

The New York CaribNews is a heavily circulated paper in New York City, providing news to the very large Caribbean community in the city. Rangel’s Harlem district also hosts a large number of people of Caribbean descent and recent immigrants.

So what does this mean? Where is the connection to anything related to Rangel’s ethical troubles? The New York CaribNews is owned by the New York Carib News Foundation, which came under fire for hosting a business getaway for members of the Congressional Black Caucus, including Rangel, that may have violated congressional ethics rules. According to the New York Post and The Hill, private companies provided the money to the New York Carib News Foundation to spend directly on the travel of the lawmakers. This would be in violation of House ethics rules preventing private companies from providing lawmakers with in kind contributions.

I’m not sure what this says about anything. Is Rangel using the Extension of Remarks to curry favor with the Carib News Foundation? Does this constant reference in the official Congressional Record help with their corporate sponsorships? Perhaps readers have other questions — or answers.

Last week, the House Ethics Committee confirmed that they were investigating two Caribbean trips, in 2007 and 2008, taken by a number of lawmakers, all members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), that may have violated House rules forbidding lawmakers from accepting corporate funded travel. The Committee empaneled a subcommittee to investigate and appointed G.K. Butterfield, a CBC member and participant in a similar Caribbean trip in 2005, as the chairman of the investigation.

Unlike the 2007 and 2008 trips, Butterfield's visit to the Caribbean did not violate House rules, as the rules forbidding corporate sponsored travel were not passed until 2007 as part of a broad ethics bill. However, considering that the CBC is openly opposing this investigation and actively trying to reverse the rule that was broken by the Caribbean trip attendees, Butterfield appears to be in a fairly conflicted situation. While he has stated that "he would step down or recuse himself if he felt conflicted at any time during the investigation," I think it's fair to say that his personal relationships with the lawmakers who are under investigation is grounds enough for recusal. In any judicial setting -- whether a judge or jury -- there would be no question that a person in Butterfield's position would not be allowed to hear this case.

This is just another example of the need for a more independent ethics body to enforce the rules of Congress. It's getting tiring writing these posts about how the ethics process doesn't work. Can't you guys just get it right?

Call the wahmbulance, some congressmen are complaining about being investigated.

Members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) are organizing a working group to gut new ethics rules that created the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE). The OCE was created as a semi-independent investigative body that could sift through ethics complaints and decide which ones merited investigation or review by the House Ethics Committee.

The CBC is upset that the OCE may be investigating a trip taken by some CBC members to the Caribbean that may have violated House rules preventing lawmakers from going on travel sponsored by corporations.

According to The Hill, a source states, "We might need to revisit that law," regarding the OCE. Another aide to a CBC member says, "In an environment where there’s allegations of clear criminality, investigating a trip to a Caribbean island is a bit odd ... What’s the charge, that they spent too much time at the pool? That’s ridiculous.”

Well... What's ridiculous is that this trip may have violated House rules and now you're pretending like the investigation is about nothing but pool-side, pina colada sipping.

There are House rules that prevent lawmakers from going on travel sponsored by corporations. These rules were passed in the wake of the Abramoff scandal to prevent Scottish golfing trips and other outrages that had gone on for too long. The convention that CBC members were attending, according to photographs and independent accounts, contained banners of corporate sponsors and speeches by CBC members thanking corporate sponsors. That's against the House rules.

While there might not be direct criminality involved, lawmakers can't just violate the House rules. At least they shouldn't be able to. And if you think that you should be able to, then please leave my city.

According to Carl Malamud, Sunlight is "truly styling" due to our appearance in the Reliable Source in an article about Capitol Words and the top words used by a smattering of lawmakers. I thought I'd provide a little, friendly correction to the gossip mavens at the Washington Post regarding the use (overuse) of the word "Caribbean" by Rep. Charles Rangel -- something that piqued my interest a while back.

The Reliable Source notes correctly that the word most often released from Rangel's mouth over the past year was "Caribbean." However, they claim this is due to his being under investigation for failure to pay taxes on a Dominican villa. This isn't correct, but the reality does have a connection to Rangel's troubles.

Now we need to first note that the word use is according to the Congressional Record, which I think we've mentioned before includes a whole bunch of words that were never actually spoken on the floor of either chamber of Congress. (You can even fabricate an entire conversation as Sam Brownback and Lindsey Graham once did.) Instead of speaking words, congressmen can insert them into the Record during debate or in the Extension of Remarks. Rangel's use of the word falls into this latter category and mostly due to his insertion of articles penned for the New York CaribNews (he uses a variety of different spellings for this news outlet).

During the 110th Congress, Rangel inserted articles by the New York CaribNews 45 times. The word "Caribbean," inserted by Rangel, appears on a total of 77 separate insertions into the Exetensions of Remarks.

The New York CaribNews is a heavily circulated paper in New York City, providing news to the very large Caribbean community in the city. Rangel's Harlem district also hosts a large number of people of Caribbean descent and recent immigrants.

So what does this mean? Where is the connection to anything related to Rangel's ethical troubles? The New York CaribNews is owned by the New York Carib News Foundation, which came under fire for hosting a business getaway for members of the Congressional Black Caucus, including Rangel, that may have violated congressional ethics rules. According to the New York Post and The Hill, private companies provided the money to the New York Carib News Foundation to spend directly on the travel of the lawmakers. This would be in violation of House ethics rules preventing private companies from providing lawmakers with in kind contributions.

I'm not sure what this says about anything. Is Rangel using the Extension of Remarks to curry favor with the Carib News Foundation? Does this constant reference in the official Congressional Record help with their corporate sponsorships? Perhaps readers have other questions -- or answers.

Anyways, looking up an odd word used by a lawmaker in the Congressional Record can sometimes take you down the rabbit hole. Go to Capitol Words to see how far you can get.